Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP · 2020
Variations in Criteria for Eligibility Determination for Early Intervention Services with a Focus on Eligibility for Children with Neonatal Complications.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dempsey Allison G, Goode Rachel H, Colon Marcos T, Holubeck Phil, Nsier Hisham, Zopatti Katherine, Needelman Howard
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy review is to describe data on eligibility determination practices for early intervention (EI) services across the United States as they particularly relate to eligibility determination for children seen in neonatal follow-up clinics.
METHOD: Policy information was gathered from posted information on state EI websites and confirmed through follow-up phone calls. Information collected included definition of delay, approved measures for developmental assessment, and inclusion criteria for medically at-risk status based on birth weight, prematurity, and/or neonatal abstinence syndrome/prenatal exposure.
RESULTS: States varied widely across enrollment practices and policies. Forty percent of states defined eligibility based on percent delay (vs SD). Thirty-five states had criteria for enrollment based on birth weight and/or prematurity, and 19 states specifically allowed enrollment for an infant with neonatal abstinence syndrome.
CONCLUSION: Providers working in neonatal follow-up clinics should be carefully educated about the eligibility criteria and approved tests for assessing development in the states in which they practice, recognizing that there is obvious and significant variability across states.
METHOD: Policy information was gathered from posted information on state EI websites and confirmed through follow-up phone calls. Information collected included definition of delay, approved measures for developmental assessment, and inclusion criteria for medically at-risk status based on birth weight, prematurity, and/or neonatal abstinence syndrome/prenatal exposure.
RESULTS: States varied widely across enrollment practices and policies. Forty percent of states defined eligibility based on percent delay (vs SD). Thirty-five states had criteria for enrollment based on birth weight and/or prematurity, and 19 states specifically allowed enrollment for an infant with neonatal abstinence syndrome.
CONCLUSION: Providers working in neonatal follow-up clinics should be carefully educated about the eligibility criteria and approved tests for assessing development in the states in which they practice, recognizing that there is obvious and significant variability across states.