New York State Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Demonstration Project: Effects of Screening Protocol on Inpatient Outcome Measures

OBJECTIVE:To examine differences among various test protocols on the fail rate at hospital discharge for infants in the well-baby nursery (WBN) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) who received hearing screening through a universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project. DESIGN:The outco...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ear and hearing 2000-04, Vol.21 (2), p.131-140
Hauptverfasser: Gravel, Judith, Berg, Abbey, Bradley, Mary, Cacace, Anthony, Campbell, Deborah, Dalzell, Larry, DeCristofaro, Joseph, Greenberg, Ellen, Gross, Steven, Orlando, Mark, Pinheiro, Joaquim, Regan, Joan, Spivak, Lynn, Stevens, Frances, Prieve, Beth
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 140
container_issue 2
container_start_page 131
container_title Ear and hearing
container_volume 21
creator Gravel, Judith
Berg, Abbey
Bradley, Mary
Cacace, Anthony
Campbell, Deborah
Dalzell, Larry
DeCristofaro, Joseph
Greenberg, Ellen
Gross, Steven
Orlando, Mark
Pinheiro, Joaquim
Regan, Joan
Spivak, Lynn
Stevens, Frances
Prieve, Beth
description OBJECTIVE:To examine differences among various test protocols on the fail rate at hospital discharge for infants in the well-baby nursery (WBN) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) who received hearing screening through a universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project. DESIGN:The outcomes of several screening protocols were examined. Two technologies were usedtransient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) alone or in combination with the auditory brain stem response (ABR). The performance of test protocols in both nurseries within eight hospitals was examined over a 2- to 3-yr period. In the WBN, six hospitals used a screening protocol of TEOAE technology first followed by an ABR (automated or conventional) technology screening for newborns who referred on TEOAE screening. Two hospitals used TEOAE only in the WBN. Seven hospitals used screening protocols in the NICU that used a combination of TEOAE and ABR technologies (TEOAE technology administered first or second, before or after TEOAE, or TEOAE and ABR tests on all infants). Only one hospital used TEOAE technology exclusively for hearing screening. RESULTS:Significant differences among screening protocols were found across hospitals in the first, second, and third years of the program. The combination of TEOAE technology and ABR technology (a two-technology screening protocol) resulted in a significantly lower fail rate at hospital discharge than the use of a single-technology (TEOAE). Fail rates at discharge were twice as high using the one-technology protocol versus two-technology protocol, even when the best outcomes from program year 3 were considered exclusively. Results of two-technology versus one-technology protocols were similar in the NICU. Use of a second technology for screening TEOAE fails significantly reduced every hospital that used the protocol’s fail rate at discharge. CONCLUSIONS:A two-technology screening protocol resulted in significantly lower fail rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00003446-200004000-00007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71053725</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71053725</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3587-de060650b8efe0b4c4c19f9386da48617fa0d6e8c41a01cfbed7cdb0c7359293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1O3TAQha2qqNwCr1B51V3oOHHshB2iUJD4k4AFK8txxiWQ2Le2w1UfoO9dXy6t2GDJmiPPd8bSHEIog30GrfwG-VSci6JcK55vsRbyA1mwumoKLoT8SBbAWlFACeU2-RzjIwArW8E_kW0GUsrcWJA_l7ii9z480ZukE9I7NzxjiHqkudH54Ogp6jC4n_TGBES3Vt9x8i6moNPgHb0O_hFNOqDH1uYaqbdv2NxN3viRZvLMLbMFXaJXczJ-QnqBOs4B4y7ZsnqMuPdad8jtyfHt0WlxfvXj7OjwvDBV3ciiRxAgaugatAgdN9yw1rZVI3rNG8Gk1dALbAxnGpixHfbS9B0YWdVt2VY75Otm7DL4XzPGpKYhGhxH7dDPUUkGdSXLOoPNBjTBxxjQqmUYJh1-KwZqnYD6l4D6n8DLk8zWL69_zN2E_RvjZuUZ4Btg5ceUV_00zisM6gH1mB7Ue8lWfwEa_JLj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71053725</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>New York State Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Demonstration Project: Effects of Screening Protocol on Inpatient Outcome Measures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><creator>Gravel, Judith ; Berg, Abbey ; Bradley, Mary ; Cacace, Anthony ; Campbell, Deborah ; Dalzell, Larry ; DeCristofaro, Joseph ; Greenberg, Ellen ; Gross, Steven ; Orlando, Mark ; Pinheiro, Joaquim ; Regan, Joan ; Spivak, Lynn ; Stevens, Frances ; Prieve, Beth</creator><creatorcontrib>Gravel, Judith ; Berg, Abbey ; Bradley, Mary ; Cacace, Anthony ; Campbell, Deborah ; Dalzell, Larry ; DeCristofaro, Joseph ; Greenberg, Ellen ; Gross, Steven ; Orlando, Mark ; Pinheiro, Joaquim ; Regan, Joan ; Spivak, Lynn ; Stevens, Frances ; Prieve, Beth</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE:To examine differences among various test protocols on the fail rate at hospital discharge for infants in the well-baby nursery (WBN) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) who received hearing screening through a universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project. DESIGN:The outcomes of several screening protocols were examined. Two technologies were usedtransient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) alone or in combination with the auditory brain stem response (ABR). The performance of test protocols in both nurseries within eight hospitals was examined over a 2- to 3-yr period. In the WBN, six hospitals used a screening protocol of TEOAE technology first followed by an ABR (automated or conventional) technology screening for newborns who referred on TEOAE screening. Two hospitals used TEOAE only in the WBN. Seven hospitals used screening protocols in the NICU that used a combination of TEOAE and ABR technologies (TEOAE technology administered first or second, before or after TEOAE, or TEOAE and ABR tests on all infants). Only one hospital used TEOAE technology exclusively for hearing screening. RESULTS:Significant differences among screening protocols were found across hospitals in the first, second, and third years of the program. The combination of TEOAE technology and ABR technology (a two-technology screening protocol) resulted in a significantly lower fail rate at hospital discharge than the use of a single-technology (TEOAE). Fail rates at discharge were twice as high using the one-technology protocol versus two-technology protocol, even when the best outcomes from program year 3 were considered exclusively. Results of two-technology versus one-technology protocols were similar in the NICU. Use of a second technology for screening TEOAE fails significantly reduced every hospital that used the protocol’s fail rate at discharge. CONCLUSIONS:A two-technology screening protocol resulted in significantly lower fail rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0196-0202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-4667</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200004000-00007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10777020</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</publisher><subject>Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hearing Disorders - diagnosis ; Hearing Disorders - epidemiology ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Neonatal Screening ; New York - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Ear and hearing, 2000-04, Vol.21 (2), p.131-140</ispartof><rights>2000 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3587-de060650b8efe0b4c4c19f9386da48617fa0d6e8c41a01cfbed7cdb0c7359293</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3587-de060650b8efe0b4c4c19f9386da48617fa0d6e8c41a01cfbed7cdb0c7359293</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10777020$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gravel, Judith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Abbey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradley, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cacace, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalzell, Larry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeCristofaro, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gross, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orlando, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinheiro, Joaquim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regan, Joan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spivak, Lynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevens, Frances</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prieve, Beth</creatorcontrib><title>New York State Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Demonstration Project: Effects of Screening Protocol on Inpatient Outcome Measures</title><title>Ear and hearing</title><addtitle>Ear Hear</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE:To examine differences among various test protocols on the fail rate at hospital discharge for infants in the well-baby nursery (WBN) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) who received hearing screening through a universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project. DESIGN:The outcomes of several screening protocols were examined. Two technologies were usedtransient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) alone or in combination with the auditory brain stem response (ABR). The performance of test protocols in both nurseries within eight hospitals was examined over a 2- to 3-yr period. In the WBN, six hospitals used a screening protocol of TEOAE technology first followed by an ABR (automated or conventional) technology screening for newborns who referred on TEOAE screening. Two hospitals used TEOAE only in the WBN. Seven hospitals used screening protocols in the NICU that used a combination of TEOAE and ABR technologies (TEOAE technology administered first or second, before or after TEOAE, or TEOAE and ABR tests on all infants). Only one hospital used TEOAE technology exclusively for hearing screening. RESULTS:Significant differences among screening protocols were found across hospitals in the first, second, and third years of the program. The combination of TEOAE technology and ABR technology (a two-technology screening protocol) resulted in a significantly lower fail rate at hospital discharge than the use of a single-technology (TEOAE). Fail rates at discharge were twice as high using the one-technology protocol versus two-technology protocol, even when the best outcomes from program year 3 were considered exclusively. Results of two-technology versus one-technology protocols were similar in the NICU. Use of a second technology for screening TEOAE fails significantly reduced every hospital that used the protocol’s fail rate at discharge. CONCLUSIONS:A two-technology screening protocol resulted in significantly lower fail rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.</description><subject>Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hearing Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Hearing Disorders - epidemiology</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Neonatal Screening</subject><subject>New York - epidemiology</subject><issn>0196-0202</issn><issn>1538-4667</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1O3TAQha2qqNwCr1B51V3oOHHshB2iUJD4k4AFK8txxiWQ2Le2w1UfoO9dXy6t2GDJmiPPd8bSHEIog30GrfwG-VSci6JcK55vsRbyA1mwumoKLoT8SBbAWlFACeU2-RzjIwArW8E_kW0GUsrcWJA_l7ii9z480ZukE9I7NzxjiHqkudH54Ogp6jC4n_TGBES3Vt9x8i6moNPgHb0O_hFNOqDH1uYaqbdv2NxN3viRZvLMLbMFXaJXczJ-QnqBOs4B4y7ZsnqMuPdad8jtyfHt0WlxfvXj7OjwvDBV3ciiRxAgaugatAgdN9yw1rZVI3rNG8Gk1dALbAxnGpixHfbS9B0YWdVt2VY75Otm7DL4XzPGpKYhGhxH7dDPUUkGdSXLOoPNBjTBxxjQqmUYJh1-KwZqnYD6l4D6n8DLk8zWL69_zN2E_RvjZuUZ4Btg5ceUV_00zisM6gH1mB7Ue8lWfwEa_JLj</recordid><startdate>200004</startdate><enddate>200004</enddate><creator>Gravel, Judith</creator><creator>Berg, Abbey</creator><creator>Bradley, Mary</creator><creator>Cacace, Anthony</creator><creator>Campbell, Deborah</creator><creator>Dalzell, Larry</creator><creator>DeCristofaro, Joseph</creator><creator>Greenberg, Ellen</creator><creator>Gross, Steven</creator><creator>Orlando, Mark</creator><creator>Pinheiro, Joaquim</creator><creator>Regan, Joan</creator><creator>Spivak, Lynn</creator><creator>Stevens, Frances</creator><creator>Prieve, Beth</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200004</creationdate><title>New York State Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Demonstration Project: Effects of Screening Protocol on Inpatient Outcome Measures</title><author>Gravel, Judith ; Berg, Abbey ; Bradley, Mary ; Cacace, Anthony ; Campbell, Deborah ; Dalzell, Larry ; DeCristofaro, Joseph ; Greenberg, Ellen ; Gross, Steven ; Orlando, Mark ; Pinheiro, Joaquim ; Regan, Joan ; Spivak, Lynn ; Stevens, Frances ; Prieve, Beth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3587-de060650b8efe0b4c4c19f9386da48617fa0d6e8c41a01cfbed7cdb0c7359293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hearing Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Hearing Disorders - epidemiology</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Neonatal Screening</topic><topic>New York - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gravel, Judith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Abbey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradley, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cacace, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalzell, Larry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeCristofaro, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gross, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orlando, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinheiro, Joaquim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regan, Joan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spivak, Lynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevens, Frances</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prieve, Beth</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Ear and hearing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gravel, Judith</au><au>Berg, Abbey</au><au>Bradley, Mary</au><au>Cacace, Anthony</au><au>Campbell, Deborah</au><au>Dalzell, Larry</au><au>DeCristofaro, Joseph</au><au>Greenberg, Ellen</au><au>Gross, Steven</au><au>Orlando, Mark</au><au>Pinheiro, Joaquim</au><au>Regan, Joan</au><au>Spivak, Lynn</au><au>Stevens, Frances</au><au>Prieve, Beth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>New York State Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Demonstration Project: Effects of Screening Protocol on Inpatient Outcome Measures</atitle><jtitle>Ear and hearing</jtitle><addtitle>Ear Hear</addtitle><date>2000-04</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>131</spage><epage>140</epage><pages>131-140</pages><issn>0196-0202</issn><eissn>1538-4667</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVE:To examine differences among various test protocols on the fail rate at hospital discharge for infants in the well-baby nursery (WBN) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) who received hearing screening through a universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project. DESIGN:The outcomes of several screening protocols were examined. Two technologies were usedtransient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) alone or in combination with the auditory brain stem response (ABR). The performance of test protocols in both nurseries within eight hospitals was examined over a 2- to 3-yr period. In the WBN, six hospitals used a screening protocol of TEOAE technology first followed by an ABR (automated or conventional) technology screening for newborns who referred on TEOAE screening. Two hospitals used TEOAE only in the WBN. Seven hospitals used screening protocols in the NICU that used a combination of TEOAE and ABR technologies (TEOAE technology administered first or second, before or after TEOAE, or TEOAE and ABR tests on all infants). Only one hospital used TEOAE technology exclusively for hearing screening. RESULTS:Significant differences among screening protocols were found across hospitals in the first, second, and third years of the program. The combination of TEOAE technology and ABR technology (a two-technology screening protocol) resulted in a significantly lower fail rate at hospital discharge than the use of a single-technology (TEOAE). Fail rates at discharge were twice as high using the one-technology protocol versus two-technology protocol, even when the best outcomes from program year 3 were considered exclusively. Results of two-technology versus one-technology protocols were similar in the NICU. Use of a second technology for screening TEOAE fails significantly reduced every hospital that used the protocol’s fail rate at discharge. CONCLUSIONS:A two-technology screening protocol resulted in significantly lower fail rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</pub><pmid>10777020</pmid><doi>10.1097/00003446-200004000-00007</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0196-0202
ispartof Ear and hearing, 2000-04, Vol.21 (2), p.131-140
issn 0196-0202
1538-4667
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71053725
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload
subjects Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology
Follow-Up Studies
Hearing Disorders - diagnosis
Hearing Disorders - epidemiology
Hospitals
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Neonatal Screening
New York - epidemiology
title New York State Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Demonstration Project: Effects of Screening Protocol on Inpatient Outcome Measures
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T18%3A46%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=New%20York%20State%20Universal%20Newborn%20Hearing%20Screening%20Demonstration%20Project:%20Effects%20of%20Screening%20Protocol%20on%20Inpatient%20Outcome%20Measures&rft.jtitle=Ear%20and%20hearing&rft.au=Gravel,%20Judith&rft.date=2000-04&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=131&rft.epage=140&rft.pages=131-140&rft.issn=0196-0202&rft.eissn=1538-4667&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00003446-200004000-00007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71053725%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71053725&rft_id=info:pmid/10777020&rfr_iscdi=true