Provider Use of Corrected Age During Health Supervision Visits for Premature Infants

Abstract

IntroductionCorrecting age for prematurity is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The use of chronological age instead of corrected age for infants born prematurely may result in incorrect interpretations regarding the adequacy of a child’s growth or developmental progress and has the potential to negatively affect care. This study examined the frequency and impact of the use of corrected age by primary care providers. MethodA retrospective cross-sectional electronic health record review was performed for all infants < 32 weeks’ gestation who were seen for a health supervision visit in a 31-site pediatric network during a 1-year period. Primary care providers used an electronic health record that defaulted to chronological age information. ResultsPrimary care providers used corrected age for developmental surveillance for 24% of visits, they used chronological age for 71% of visits, and the age used was unclear in 5% of visits. The lower a child’s gestational age and the more that chronological age was used, the more concerns were identified by primary care providers. Dietary changes that included the introduction of solid foods, the start of fluoride, and the introduction of milk typically were recommended on the basis of chronological age. DiscussionPrimary care providers used chronological age more than corrected age, which influenced assessment and recommendations for care. This study illustrates the impact of not using corrected age, the importance of ensuring that care aligns with guidelines, and the possible influence of the design of the electronic health record on patient care. Because families of premature infants rely on primary care providers to accurately identify sequelae associated with prematurity, and to provide reassurance when it is warranted, these findings have implications for all health care providers who treat premature infants.