Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program—4-year experience (2003–2006)

2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (12) ◽  
pp. 1783-1787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Witold Szyfter ◽  
Maciej Wróbel ◽  
Marzanna Radziszewska-Konopka ◽  
Joanna Szyfter-Harris ◽  
Michał Karlik
Keyword(s):  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program in Poland – 10-year summary

2015 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grażyna Greczka ◽  
Maciej Wróbel ◽  
Piotr Dąbrowski ◽  
Katarzyna Mikołajczak ◽  
Witold Szyfter
Keyword(s):  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

Follow-up on the diagnostic level of children covered by the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program in Poland, divided into voivodships

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Grażyna Greczka ◽  
Monika Zych ◽  
Piotr Dąbrowski ◽  
Anna Gasińska ◽  
Anna Król ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Telephone Survey ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Actual Number ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Central Database ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Test Result

Introduction: Thanks to the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program (PUNHSP), All newborns in Poland undergo a free, screening hearing examination. Between 2006 and 2015, the average number of tested children per year was 373,477. According to the analysis of The Central Database(CDB), only 55.8% of the children attended the detailed hearing examinations at the second level of the Program. Aim: The aim of this study is to analyze the dates concerning the attendance of the children at the diagnostic level of PUNHSP in different regions of Poland. Materials and methods: To conduct an analysis of this fact and find out the reasons for the low attendance at the second level in 2015, a telephone survey questionnaire was developed for parents whose children had not registered for further consultation - 3,239 randomly selected parents. Results: The analysis revealed that the number of children examined at the second diagnostic level of the program is in fact much higher than the results of The Central Database show. The actual number is 83.6% as opposed to 55,8%. As a result of the telephone questionnaire, some inaccuracies in the input data to the CDB were detected. The main errors involved in the gathering of information for the CDB was the incorrect OAE test result and the lack of performed examination. Conclusion: In Poland, the worst results for the attendance to the diagnostic level (the results were a comparison of the questionnaire results compared to the CDB) was shown in Pomorskie, Lubelskie, Mazowieckie, and Podlaskie regions. In many cases, there was a large difference in reality to what the information in the CDB claimed. The improvement of clarity concerning the CDB application is important in order to minimize the possibility of malformation in the CDB.

scholarly journals Universal neonatal hearing screening program at a university hospital: an analysis using quality indicators

Revista CEFAC ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrei Thayse Viegel de Avila ◽  
Adriane Ribeiro Teixeira ◽  
Luíza Silva Vernier ◽  
Adriana Laybauer Silveira
Keyword(s):  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
National Guideline ◽  
Important Data ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Coverage ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Descriptive Statistical Analysis

ABSTRACT Purpose: to assess the universal neonatal hearing screening program using quality indicators. Methods: the records of newborns who were submitted to the neonatal hearing screening in 2018 were analyzed, comparing the data with the first five quality indicators established by the national guideline for neonatal hearing screening attention: 1) rate of screening coverage (≥95%); 2) age at the screening in months (up to the first month of life); 3) rate of referrals for diagnosis (2% to 4%); 4) rate of attendance to diagnostic examination (≥90%); 5) age at confirmed diagnosis (up to the third month of life). The data were submitted to quantitative and descriptive statistical analysis. Results: the rate of coverage, age at screening, and the number of referrals for diagnosis met the indicators established by the national guideline. The rate of attendance to diagnostic examination fell short of the expected, and the age at confirmed diagnosis was verified in 70% of the cases. Conclusion: using the quality indicators furnished important data on the effectiveness of the neonatal hearing screening program and identified opportunities to improve the service, which can help identify hearing loss, early.

scholarly journals Universal neonatal hearing screening in a public hospital in Brazil: parents participation

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Gonçalves ◽  
L Crispin ◽  
D Luders ◽  
C Bellia
Keyword(s):  
Public Hospital ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Parental Participation ◽  
Risk Indicator ◽  
Active Search ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

Abstract Background The National Policy for Hearing Health Care in Brazil proposes that all newborns in the country undergo hearing screening in the first month of life.The Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program being extremely important for the early intervention of deafness. However, many parents/guardians do not return to the auditory retest, interrupting the neonatal protocol and making early auditory diagnosis impossible. Objective:To analyze the reasons for the non-attendance to retest of the Hearing Screening of a hospital in Curitiba. Methods This study was carried out in a Public Hospital, with live births from August 2017-May 2018. All the born were considered for the variables gender, risk for hearing loss, age at birth, results of Hearing Screening. Failed babies were analyzed, including the active search of those who did not attend the retest, through contact with parents/guardians to collect the reasons for faults. Results 2,531 infants were born, male had a prevalence of 1,275 (50.38%), term born 1,734(68.51%) and ICU stay as the most common risk indicator - 118(79.73%). 2,261(89.33%) infant passed on both ear; among those who failed only 94(40.0%) attended the retest. An active search was performed by phone, and 78(55.31%) could not establish contact, totaling 47(54.02%) mothers contacting. These motherś age was 19 to 24 years, 56.92% of whom had high school. The majority of those in charge are aware of the result of the test of the ear of their son (82.97%), was directed to test again (87.23%), were not able to answer the reason for not attending (27.65%) or had forgotten about this commitment (19.14%). Conclusions The data analyzed showed the lack of information that parents / guardians of the newborns give to the Hearing Screening, which compromises the integrality of health actions in newborns, making it necessary to seek other ways to ensure family adherence to the Program. Key messages Babies at risk of deafness need constant monitoring. Without parental participation, there is no success in health programs.

Analysis of the changes in the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program over 15 years of activity

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grażyna Greczka ◽  
Monika Zych ◽  
Witold Szyfter ◽  
Maciej Wróbel
Keyword(s):  
High Efficiency ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Organizational Information ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
It Support ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Management Audit ◽  
And Control

Introduction: One of the examples of a nationwide pro-health program in Poland is the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program (PUNHSP). The Program is aimed at early diagnosis and intervention in children with hearing impairments and it is an example of a well-managed program. Presenting the results of the PUNHSP activity as well as organizational aspects and own experience can significantly help institutions managing other programs to achieve high efficiency in their functioning. The aim of this work is a detailed analysis of the Program evaluation during the 15 years of its activity, i.e. the identification of changes and the consequences of their introduction in the perspective of improving quality and efficiency. Materials and methods: The material is PUNHSP data, registered in the Central Database of the Program and organizational information related to management, IT support and PUNHSP infrastructure. The analysis was based on quality assessment parameters (identification of changes and the purpose of their introduction) and effectiveness (consequences of introducing changes). The analysis concerns the whole period of PUNHSP activity - from 2002 to 2017. Results: As a result of the analysis, 13 main modifications of the Program were identified as the "change" criteria and 11 smaller ones - side ones resulting from the necessity to adapt the PUNHSP functionality to current needs. The changes were grouped into five categories: legal, administrative, management, audit and control, as well as IT, changes. Discussion: When analyzing the PUNHSP evaluation, it can be assumed that the changes introduced positively influenced the various aspects of the PUNHSP activity, but do not exhaust the possibilities of further optimization of its activity. Conclusions: The Program requires constant development in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its operation, and the solutions used in it could be a stimulus to improve and create other pro-health programs.

Outcomes of a universal neonatal hearing screening program of 9941 newborns over a one-year period in Campinas, Brazil

2021 ◽  
pp. 110839
Author(s):  
Laura Franco Chiriboga ◽  
Karolina Pessote Sideri ◽  
Sthefany Nathaly Ferraresi Rodrigues Figueiredo ◽  
Elaine Soares Monteiro Pinto ◽  
Luis Miguel Chiriboga Arteta
Keyword(s):  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
One Year ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document