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 Analysis of follow-up at the diagnostic level in the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Programme

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Grażyna Greczka ◽  
Monika Zych ◽  
Maciej Wróbel ◽  
Piotr Dąbrowski ◽  
Joanna Szyfter Harris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Telephone Survey ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Survey Questionnaire ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Central Database ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

Objectives Routine analysis showed that between 1 June and 30 November 2014, only 47.6% of expected follow-up visits at the diagnostic level were registered in the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Programme central database. We attempted to detect and analyse the reasons for this low percentage. Methods A telephone survey questionnaire was developed for parents whose children had not registered for consultation at the diagnostic level, or had not received a final diagnosis according to the programme database. Questions aimed to verify the database records and compare these with information received from and given to parents. From the 7888 children not registered at the diagnostic level, 3239 records were randomly selected, i.e. 52.4% of those who had been expected to attend. Results Questions were answered by 1950 parents (60.2% of the selected group). Of these, 52.1% ( n = 734) had attended for diagnostic tests, but this was not recorded in the database. The most common reasons for not attending were the long waiting time for the visit (36.09%), lack of referral to a visit (25.9%) and conscious parent decision (16.35%). Conclusion The telephone survey disclosed omissions in database registration, and that in fact 83.6% of children had attended at the diagnostic level.

The report of the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program in 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Monika Zych ◽  
Grażyna Greczka ◽  
Piotr Dąbrowski ◽  
Maciej Wróbel ◽  
Joanna Szyfter-Harris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Central Database ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

The Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program (PUNHSP) has been carried out in Poland for 14 years. The main aim of this Program is to organize hearing screening tests and to gather the information about risk factors of hearing loss in almost all newborns in Poland. It consists of 496 centers at 3 referral levels. A total of 5 458 114 children had been registered in the Central Database (CDB) of PUNHSP by the 22nd of August 2017. Bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was the most frequently appearing hearing impairment in children. It was diagnosed in 260 cases in 2016. This report presents the most important results and conclusions concerning the running of the PUNHSP in 2016.

Critique of Neonatal Hearing Evaluation

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Goldstein ◽  
Charles Tait
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Neonatal Screening ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Hearing Impairments ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Alternative Approach

A commonly employed procedure for routine neonatal hearing screening is analyzed in terms of its rationale, method, and effectiveness. The procedure does not seem to accomplish its objectives adequately and actually creates some problems of its own. A particular weakness of the procedure is that it fails to screen many of the infants who were the main impetus for mass neonatal screening programs—children with deteriorating hearing, and those with mild-to-moderate hearing impairments present at birth. An alternative approach is offered which stresses more careful and objective evaluation of a limited number of children selected on the basis of a high-risk register. An economical and easily learned procedure is suggested to accomplish the evaluation. Stress is also placed on follow-up evaluations in well-baby clinics, in pediatricians' offices, and through mobile hearing testing units.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document