Targeted surveillance for postnatal hearing loss: A program evaluation

Beswick, Rachael; Driscoll, Carlie; Kei, Joseph; Glennon, Shirley

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.04.004

Cited by 31 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These risk factor registries can be used to identify babies who should be targeted for ongoing hearing monitoring, but in practice these registries are not very effective (Beswick, Driscoll, & Kei, 2012; Beswick, Driscoll, Kei, & Glennon, 2012; Hutt & Rhodes, 2008). In the second case, some children are missed by NHS, in particular those with low frequency HL and/or minimal/mild degrees of HL (Davis, Reeve, Hind, & Bamford, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timeliness of Service Delivery for Children With Later-Identified Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study examined diagnostic and intervention services for children identified with hearing loss (HL) after the newborn period. Method We compared ages at service delivery and length of delays between service delivery steps for 57 later-identified children with HL and 193 children who referred for assessment from the newborn hearing screen (NHS). For only later-identified children, regression models were used to investigate relationships among predictor variables and dependent variables related to service delivery. Results Children who referred from the NHS received follow-up services at younger ages than later-identified children. Later-identified children had significantly longer delays between entry into early intervention to HL confirmation, compared to children who referred from the NHS. For later-identified children, degree of HL predicted ages at follow-up clinical services. Children with more severe HL received services at younger ages compared to children with milder HL. Gender predicted the length of the delay between confirmation to entry into early intervention, with females demonstrating shorter delays. Conclusions The current results lend support to the need for ongoing hearing monitoring programs after the neonatal period, particularly when children enter early intervention programs because of language/developmental delays.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timeliness of Service Delivery for Children With Later-Identified Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Direct referral contributed 93.1% of total bilateral >40 dB SNHL diagnoses made and 88.2% of unilateral, ≤40 dB or conductive hearing loss, compared with 5.3 and 9.8%, respectively, from TS. A previous study from Queensland on the value of TS for detection of post‐natal hearing loss highlighted the limitations of this program (including the high number of false positives) and the need for re‐examination of individual and combined risk factors …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Newborn hearing screening is performed by nurses and midwives using the Natus ALGO3 (Natus Medical Incorporated, Pleasanton, CA, USA) or ALGO3i aABR (Natus Medical Incorporated, Pleasanton, CA, USA) equipment. A second screen is performed if an infant does not pass their first screen, with each stage giving a ‘pass’, or ‘refer’ (unilateral or bilateral) result . Two ‘refers’ is an indication for direct referral for audiology assessment, occurring within 2 weeks if bilateral and 6 weeks if unilateral .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second screen is performed if an infant does not pass their first screen, with each stage giving a ‘pass’, or ‘refer’ (unilateral or bilateral) result . Two ‘refers’ is an indication for direct referral for audiology assessment, occurring within 2 weeks if bilateral and 6 weeks if unilateral . Infants who pass the screen but have risk factor(s) for progressive or late onset hearing loss are referred for TS with audiology assessment at 9–12 months corrected age (specific schedule summarised in Appendix ) …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Preterm infant screening generally occurred at 36–38 weeks postmenstrual age. If unscreened when discharged, arrangements were made for outpatient screening as per the Healthy Hearing protocol …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Newborn hearing screening in Queensland 2009–2011: Comparison of hearing screening and diagnostic audiological assessment between term and preterm infants

Calcutt

Dornan

Beswick

et al. 2016

J Paediatrics Child Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific hearing screening and diagnosis characteristics differed between preterm infants <34 and 34-36 weeks gestation, and term infants. Consideration of unique gestational age strata characteristics supports care individualisation. Preterm infants represent a diagnostic challenge, with higher rates of bilateral >40 dB SNHL than term but correspondingly higher false positive results on screening, justifying vigilant monitoring. Focused research into specific risk factors in preterm infants is warranted.

show abstract