Skip to main content
SMFM 2026 Pregnancy Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Additional registration fee required
Additional registration fee required
Faculty have requested this content not be shared outside of the session
Faculty have requested this content not be shared outside of the session
CME Credit Offered
CME Credit Offered
Abstract Award
Abstract Award
Recording available 2/16-5/2
Recording available 2/16-5/2
AIUM Credit
AIUM Credit
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee
Poster Icons
Abstract Award
Abstract Award
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee

Poster Session 2

Category: Clinical Obstetrics

Poster Session 2

(599) Outcomes after implementation of a hybrid virtual/in-person prenatal care model

Wednesday, February 11, 2026
3:30 PM - 5:00 PM  
Objective:
Barriers to in-person care during the COVID-19 pandemic led to development of a blended virtual/in-person compared to traditional face-to-face prenatal care.  We evaluated perinatal outcomes after implementing this blended model in a large health maintenance organization.

Study Design:
A matched case-control study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Southern California, comparing the blended virtual/in-person care model (cases, 7/22/2022-12/31/2024) with the traditional face-to-face care model (controls, 1/1/2018-12/31/2019).

Results:

Among 41,538 patients (473 cases; 41,065 controls), cases were older at delivery (32.0±4.6 vs. 30.3±4.9 y, p< .0001), more likely to be non-Hispanic whites (68.9% vs. 30.0%, p< 0.0001), had higher median household income, and higher rates of publicly-funded coverage (15.9% vs. 11.2%, p< .0001). Cases were fewer first-time mothers (20.9% vs. 39.8%, p< .0001), with lower alcohol/substance use but higher smoking rates. Prenatal care initiation in the first trimester was lower (92.6% vs. 94.1%). Cases had fewer in-person visits (6.2 vs. 13.1, p< 0.0001), more virtual visits (3.2 vs. 0.8, p< .0001), and fewer total visits (9.4 vs. 13.9, p< .0001). Depression screening was more frequent in cases (84.1% vs. 41.9%, p< .0001), while gestational diabetes screening was less frequent (32.3% vs. 90.4%, p< .0001). Compared to controls, cases had lower odds of preterm PROM (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07–0.79) and preterm birth < 37 weeks (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31–0.85), but higher odds of non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing (OR 1.29, 9% CI 1.05–1.59) and macrosomia (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.10–19.91). No significant differences were observed in placenta previa, chorioamnionitis, cesarean birth, postpartum hemorrhage, or maternal length of stay >2 days.

Conclusion:

Despite differences in patient characteristics and rates of depression and gestational diabetes screening, perinatal outcomes were similar in patients who received prenatal care through a blended in-person/virtual model compared to those who received exclusively in-person care.