Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 5.
Published in final edited form as: J Natl Med Assoc. 2012 Nov-Dec;104(0):528–534. doi: 10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30219-4

Table 1.

Details about the search and amount of labor needed to confirm the correct PCPs for the first 150 sickle trait infants

Description of our search for the infant’s PCP Number of calls per infant*
Median SD
Rapid success = 91
85 infants The listed provider knew that he or she was the infant’s PCP 1 .3
6 infants The listed provider was the PCP or a partner, but a nurse or other staff person had been delegated to inform the parent about the result. 1 .4
Eventual success = 45
18 infants The listed provider was not the PCP but knew the correct PCP 2 1.4
5 infants We identified the PCP after a call to the birthing facility’s nursery or medical records department 3 .9
2 infants We identified the PCP after a second NBS report was sent to us with a different PCP 4 0
15 infants The listed provider initially denied knowing the infant, but we learned later that the parent subsequently called the PCP’s office for an appointment 3 .5
5 infants The listed provider initially claimed to be the PCP, but we later discovered that the infant had been moved to another PCP’s practice 3 1.5
Failure = 14
5 infants PCP search ended when an exclusion criterion was identified** 2 1.3
9 infants PCP was not found using protocol criteria*** 4 .8
*

Number of calls does not include faxes and calls needed to verify fax numbers or other contact information

**

Exclusion criteria were if the infant was less than 35 weeks gestation age, spent more than 5 days in the NICU, or had a parent that spoke a language other than English.

***

The IRB protocol specifically prohibited us from contacting the parents directly to ask who their infant’s physician is. We could only seek this information from clinic, hospital or insurance records.