scholarly journals Universal newborn hearing screening: the Belgian experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Lerut ◽  
B Van Overmeire ◽  
S Scholtissen ◽  
C Guérin ◽  
T Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Birth Cohort ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Automated Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Brainstem Response

Abstract Issue Worldwide 466 million people suffer from hearing loss (HL), of whom 34 million children. Early detection of HL in newborns through screening and subsequent intervention significantly improve their developmental and psychosocial outcome. The WHA adopted a resolution on prevention of deafness and HL (2017), urging the member states 'to develop, implement and monitor screening programs for early identification of ear diseases'. Population based newborn hearing screening (PNHS) by automated otoacoustic emission (AOAE) and/or automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) is considered good practice. Description of the Problem Flanders (FL): PNHS by AABR at the age of 2-3 weeks (pass/refer), repeated in case of 'refer'. At 2x 'refer', referral to a tertiary hearing center. French speaking community (FSC): newborns with risk factors for congenital HL are immediately referred to ENT. Others undergo AOAE at day 2-3 (pass/refer with retest in case of 'refer'). At 2x 'refer', referral to ENT for AABR. German speaking community: no data available. Results Coverage rate: FL (birth cohort 2014): 96-98%. FSC (birth cohort 2016): 94.9% of newborns without risk factors had a 1st test. 8.7% of newborns with risk factors didn't have any test. Detection rate/1000 tested newborns FL: 2.1 newborns with congenital HL. FSC: 2.33 newborns with HL (0.30 perceptive/0.36 permanently conductive/0.75 temporary conductive/0.1 conductive NOS/0.06 mixed type/0.77 NOS). Lessons Belgium has at least 2 quality PNHS programs. Due to program differences (different tests/age of testing/registration/financing) in depth comparative analysis on their performance, outcome and cost effectiveness is currently lacking (future perspective). Key messages PNHS is common in high income countries, but is not yet integrated worldwide. In the light of the 2017 WHA resolution Belgium might inspire regions and countries starting up PNHS. An in depth comparative analysis of the current Belgian PNHS programs is needed.

scholarly journals Newborn Hearing Screening in Bavaria—Is It Possible to Reach the Quality Parameters?

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Inken Brockow ◽  
Kristina Söhl ◽  
Uta Nennstiel
Keyword(s):  
Screening Test ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Automated Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Brainstem Response

Since the 1 January, 2009, newborn hearing screening (NHS) has been obligatory for every child in Germany. NHS is part of the Pediatrics Directive of the Federal Joint Committee. In this directive, details of the procedures and screening quality to be achieved are given. We evaluate if these quality criteria were met in Bavaria in 2016. The NHS data of children born in 2016 in Bavaria were evaluated for quality criteria, such as screening coverage in screening facilities, screening methods, referral rate (rate of failed tests at discharge) and a child’s age at the diagnosis of a hearing disorder. NHS was documented for 116,776 children born in Bavaria in 2016. In the first step, 78,904 newborns were screened with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions and 37,865 with automated auditory brainstem response. Of these, 9182 (7.8%) failed the first test in one or both ears. A second screening before discharge was performed on 53.3% of the newborns with a refer result in the first test, out of which 58.7% received a pass result. After the screening process, 4.6% of the newborns were discharged with a refer result. Only 18% of the first controls after discharge were performed by a pediatric audiologist. In 37.9% of the newborns, the screening center intervened to assure the control of any failed screening test. The median age of diagnosis for bilateral hearing loss was 5.3 months. In Bavaria, NHS was implemented successfully. A tracking system for all children who failed the hearing screening test is pivotal for early diagnosis and therapy of children with hearing deficiency.

Comparison of universal newborn hearing screening programs in Illinois hospitals

2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lia M. Ferro ◽  
Gail Tanner ◽  
Susan F. Erler ◽  
Kristine Erickson ◽  
Sumitrajit Dhar
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Objective Hearing Screening Measures: An Exploration of a Suitable Combination for Risk-Based Newborn Hearing Screening

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (06) ◽  
pp. 495-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amisha Kanji ◽  
Katijah Khoza-Shangase
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Paired Data ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Automated Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Screening Measures

AbstractThe ideal hearing screening measure is yet to be defined, with various newborn hearing screening protocols currently being recommended for different contexts. Such diverse recommendations call for further exploration and definition of feasible and context-specific protocols.The aim of the study was to establish which combinations of audiological screening measures provide both true-positive (TP) and true-negative (TN) results for risk-based hearing screening, at and across time.A longitudinal, repeated-measures design was employed.Three-hundred and twenty-five participants comprised the initial study sample. These participants comprised newborns and infants who were discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit and high care wards to “step down” wards at two public sector hospitals within an academic hospital complex.Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) were conducted at the initial and repeat hearing screening. Diagnostic audiological assessments were also conducted. Results from combinations of audiological screening measures at the initial and repeat hearing screening were analyzed in relation to the final diagnostic outcome (n = 91). Participants were classified as presenting with an overall “refer” if the outcome for any one test was “refer.” The overall screening outcomes for different test combinations were compared using McNemar’s test for paired data. Proportions across different test combinations were compared by the z-test for proportions.Because of the absence of participants with hearing loss in the current study sample, analysis could only be conducted in relation to TN findings (specificity) and not TP findings (sensitivity). The percentage of TN findings was highest at the repeat hearing screening using any test or combination of tests when compared with findings from the initial hearing screening. TEOAE combined with AABR (TEOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), DPOAE combined with AABR (DPOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), and the combination of all three screening measures (p < 0.0001) yielded the highest percentage specificity at the repeat hearing screening when compared with the initial hearing screening.The best specificity was noted at the repeat hearing screening. Within a resource stricken context, where availability of all screening measures options may not be feasible, current study findings suggest the use of a two-stage AABR protocol or TEOAE/AABR protocol.

scholarly journals Surdez Congénita ou Precocemente Adquirida: Do Rastreio ao Seguimento, um Retrato de Portugal

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 767
Author(s):  
Catarina Oliveira ◽  
Marta Machado ◽  
Raquel Zenha ◽  
Luísa Azevedo ◽  
Luísa Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Congenital Deafness ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Maternity Hospitals ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Introduction: Congenital deafness or early acquired deafness affects 1 to 3 out of 1000 newborns without risk factors and 20 to 40 out of 1000 newborns with risk factors. The universal newborn hearing screening enables its early identification. Children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness have a higher prevalence of other conditions, especially ophthalmologic and neurodevelopmental ones, and at least 30% to 40% have at least one associated comorbidity.Material and Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional, multicenter study in which 83% (n = 30) of the hospitals/maternity hospitals of the National Health Service participated.Results: All surveyed hospitals/maternity hospitals routinely performed universal newborn hearing screening to all newborns before discharge; 63% referred children with risk factors for hearing loss to Otorhinolaryngology. All children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness are referred to: Pediatrics in 23% hospitals/maternity hospitals. In 23 hospitals/maternity hospitals, all children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness are referred to: Speech Therapy in 44% hospitals/ maternity hospitals; Ophthalmology in 17% hospitals/maternity hospitals; National System of Early Intervention in Childhood in 30% hospitals/maternity hospitals; 22% of hospitals/maternity hospitals refer all children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness, with no identified cause, to Clinical Genetics clinics. The number of diagnoses of deafness in the years 2014 and 2015 was 2.5 and 1.5 per 1000 newborns, respectively, in 15 hospitals/maternity hospitals.Discussion: Awareness of universal newborn hearing screening seems to be widely spread in the National Health Service. The number of children with SC / SPA, as well as the percentage of different types of deafness diagnosed, were identical to those found in other studies and shows its importance. The assessment / follow-up of these children by specialties other than the otolaryngology was heterogeneous in different health entities and revealed that not all children with risk factors for deafness follow up advised by existing standards.Conclusion: Results show that Portugal made an important path in the screening and follow-up of children with SC / SPA. It is important, with the ultimate aim of continually improving the care of these children, to reflect on the involvement of specialties other than otolaryngology, such as the National Early Childhood Intervention System in the follow-up of these children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document