Health Supervision: Well-Child Visits

Author(s):  
Theresa Kyle
Keyword(s):  
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-146
Author(s):  
Claude Rogé ◽  
Michael Cooper ◽  
Harold Tarnoff

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 963-964
Author(s):  
Alfred Yankauer

Studies of the kind Dr. Anderson has reported are important because of the issues they raise—issues that only time, social change and further study will finally resolve. The issues are both direct and indirect or inferential. The direct issues apply only to young children who are receiving continuing comprehensive health care from a single medical source regardless of how the source is financed, and to the "routine" examination of such children to discover new somatic conditions in need of care. Dr. Anderson's findings challenge the rigidity of current American health supervision routines. They raise questions, not only about the extent to which other "examiners" can select (not diagnose or treat) children who require the pediatrician's special attention but also about the frequency, content and timing of such examinations, regardless of who carries them out. The indirect issues are more sensitive and more difficult to deal with. They revolve around the questions which Dr. Webb has phrased so feelingly in terms that will be understood by many pediatricians: the nature of the pediatrician's expectations and the satisfactions he derives from his work; his ability to work with and through others rather than in simple one-to-one relationship; the numbers, training, and roles of other workers associated with him; the relative importance of "routine" physical examinations as compared to other aspects of his work; the acceptability of any change in routines to his patients; and the need to "sell" services in a competitive market subject to greater consumer control. Statistical projections must always stumble over if's and but's.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 620-620
Author(s):  
Glenn Austin

In the November 1974 issue of Pediatrics McAtee and Silver discussed pediatric and school nurse practitioners, commenting that many in the nursing profession are dissatisfied with their role. The needs and desires of nurses and, in the commentaries, the needs of pediatricians were discussed but no one spoke for the needs of children and their families. None of the principals involved have ever really been in the primary practice of pediatrics. Few pediatric professors have had any successful long-term experience in private practice—the one place where they might learn the needs of parents and children and understand the effects of long-term health supervision.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 834-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard C. Wasserman ◽  
Candace A. Croft ◽  
Sarah E. Brotherton

In this cross-sectional study, the vision-screening process is described for 8417 children aged 3 to 5 seen for health supervision in a group of 102 pediatric practices in 23 states and Puerto Rico. Three hundred forty children who failed screening (63% of those who failed) were followed up 2 months after initial screening. The sample was 52% male, 86% white, 9% black, 3% Hispanic, and 1% Asian. Vision screening was attempted on 66% of children overall. Pediatricians' reasons for not screening were "not routine" (44%), "too young" (40%), and "screening done previously" (17%). Younger children were less likely to be screened than older children (39% of those aged 3), and Hispanics were less likely to be screened than other ethnic groups (P < .001). Thirty-three percent of children received no screening for latent strabismus. Two months later, 50% of parents whose child had failed a vision test were unaware of this fact on questionnaire follow-up. Eighty-five percent of children referred to an eye specialist had made or kept an appointment. It is concluded that pediatricians need to increase vision screening among younger preschool children and communicate more effectively to parents the results of screening failure.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-159
Author(s):  
Robert H. Chesky

As a private practitioner with some interest in periodic, standardized preschool developmental screening, I appreciated the recent position statement on this subject (Pediatrics, May 1994) by the Committee on Children with Disabilities. At least in my locale, it doesn't seem to me that we practicing pediatricians (myself included) have exactly covered ourselves with glory with respect to this important area of health supervision. Thus, perhaps pediatricians may benefit from "regular," "periodic," "formal" American Academy of Pediatrics reminders that inaccurate developmental assessments may deny preschool children needed (and now often publicly funded) early intervention and special education services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document