scholarly journals Analysis of the Referral Rates of Newborn Hearing Screening Test According to Childbirth Delivery Methods in Neonatal Care Units

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. 2923
Author(s):  
Ganghyeon Seo ◽  
Hyo Geun Choi ◽  
Sookyung Jang ◽  
Sun Choi ◽  
Sa Ra Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Neonatal Care ◽  
Referral Rate ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care Units ◽  
Parental Anxiety ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Referral Rates ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Level I

It is known that neonates born by cesarean delivery (CD) may have higher referral rates than those born by vaginal delivery (VD) for newborn hearing screening (NHS). False-positive NHS results can increase costs and parental anxiety. This study analyzed the differences in NHS referral rates according to delivery methods in Level I, II, and III neonatal care units. A retrospective chart review was done for 2322 infants (4644 ears) with delivery records who underwent NHS between 2004 and 2017. The first NHS was performed immediately before discharge when the infant was in good condition via the automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) or automated otoacoustic emissions (AOAE). There were 98 neonates (196 ears) who underwent both AABR and AOAE simultaneously as the first NHS, 30 of which failed. We used a total of 4810 ears in this analysis. Of all enrolled ears, 2075 ears were of neonates born by CD, and 2735 ears were of neonates born by VD. A total of 2460 ears were from patients in Level III neonatal intensive care units (NICU) and 2350 ears were from Level I and II neonatal care units. The overall referral rate was higher in infants born via CD (4.5%) than VD (3.2%). In Level I and II neonatal intensive care units, the referral rate was significantly higher in those born via CD (3.0%) than via VD (1.4%). Further, based on the screening method, AABR (75.8%) was more frequently used than AOAE (24.2%), thereby revealing AABR’s higher referral rate in CD (2.9%) than in VD (1.2%). The referral rate of infants who underwent the NHS within three days of birth was higher in the CD group (3.0%) than in the VD group (1.3%). There was no significant difference in the referral rate depending on the delivery method when infants were hospitalized for more than four days or hospitalized in the NICU. The referral rate according to the delivery methods was significantly higher when the NHS test was performed for healthy newborns in the Level I and II neonatal care units born by CD within 72 h using AABR. Therefore, we recommend that the hearing screening test for newborns delivered by cesarean section be performed after 72 h of age. The results of this study may reduce the false-positive NHS results, unnecessary further tests, and parental anxiety.

Provider Perspectives on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Teleneonatology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Fang ◽  
Rachel Umoren ◽  
Hilary Whyte ◽  
Jamie Limjoco ◽  
Abhishek Makkar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Neonatal Care ◽  
Community Hospitals ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Level I ◽  
Strongly Agree

Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals. Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models. Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries. Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable. Key Points

Provider Perspectives on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Teleneonatology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Fang ◽  
Rachel A Umoren ◽  
Hilary Whyte ◽  
Jamie Limjoco ◽  
Abhishek Makkar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Neonatal Care ◽  
Community Hospitals ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Level I ◽  
Strongly Agree

Objective: We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICU) and community hospitals. Study Design: Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the twelve statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models. Results: The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6-99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4-4.7 and median scores of 4.0-5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries. Conclusion: Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable.

Assessing Loss to Follow-up After Newborn Hearing Screening in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Cheung ◽  
Tammy Chen ◽  
Rachel Rivero ◽  
Kristin Hartman-Joshi ◽  
Michael B. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Newborn Hearing

scholarly journals Prevalence of hearing impairment and outcome of universal neonatal hearing screening program in a tertiary care hospital – in UAE

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 40-44
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Saleh ElHalik ◽  
Swarup Kumar Dash ◽  
Arif Moinuddin Faquih ◽  
Rim Aref Mahfouz ◽  
Faseela Shejee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Background and objective: Hearing loss is one of the most common congenital anomalies, occurring in 1 to 3 per 1000 newborn infants in the well-baby nursery population, and 2 to 4 per 100 infants in the Neonatal intensive care unit graduates. The aim of the study is to identify babies with potential hearing loss and direct them to early intervention and rehabilitation. The program also initiated to create awareness about the need for detecting childhood deafness among parents and general population. An estimate of coverage, prevalence and proportion of babies defaulting newborn hearing screening program and diagnostic evaluation monitored closely to find the effectiveness of the program. Study design: This is a retrospective study and was conducted at Latifa women and children’s hospital (LWCH), a tertiary care referral hospital at Dubai, United Arab Emirates, over a period of two years from January 2018 to December 2019. Neonates admitted in Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and Post Natal wards (PNW) were screened. We followed three tier approach of hearing screening. All eligible neonates were subjected to Transient Evoked Oto-acoustic emission (TEOAE) prior to discharge. Automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) hearing screening was conducted in neonates who did not pass TEOAE test. Infant who failed second screening (AABR) were subjected to comprehensive hearing evaluation prior to three months of age. Results: Out of the total 7923 neonates, 7895(99.65%) were screened and 118 (1.49%) newborns referred for comprehensive audiological evaluation. Among them, 27(0.34%) were identified with various degrees of hearing loss. The prevalence of hearing loss was found to be 0.16% and 0.92% among neonates from PNW and NICU respectively. Conclusion: Implementation of Universal newborn hearing screening program is the need of the hour, as early detection of Hearing loss will aid early rehabilitation and better outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document