AudiologyOnline Phone: 800-753-2160


Shoebox - Learn More - January 2024

Universal Screening of Newborns: The Promise and The Reality

Universal Screening of Newborns: The Promise and The Reality
David Luterman, EdD
March 2, 2000
Share:

It has been a long dream of our profession to screen the hearing of newborns based on the assumption that early detection and early intervention can and will minimize the negative consequences of childhood deafness. With the advent of automated ABR and OAE testing, the dream could technologically become a reality. Our national associations have become enthusiastic advocates of legislation promoting the establishment of universal screenings for all newborns.

Bess and Paradise (1994) suggested that despite our technologic abilities -- our profession was not ready to manage the consequences of universal screenings. Bess and Paradise were additionally concerned about high false positive rates and the lack of trained personnel available to manage families of the newly identified infants.

The N.I.H. Consensus Statement (1993) which gave sanction to the screening of newborns was also careful to state that screening programs should not be instituted unless a good management program was in place.

In 2000, nearly seven years later, we now have accumulated data regarding results of the early screening programs which clearly indicate that Bess and Paradise were prophetic and indeed, the admonition of the N.I.H. panel was not heeded.

Recent studies have indicated:

1. False positive rates hover between 50 and 90 percent (Mehl and Thomson, 1998, Mason & Hermann, 1998) Clearly these false positives are significant and can be the source of tremendous familial anxiety, fear and tension.
2. Additionally, Arehart et. al. (1998) determined that of 16 states with newborn screening programs, only fifteen percent of the sites reported the average age of confirmation (of the hearing loss) to be within the first three months of life. Further, only fifteen percent of the sites reported the average age of intervention to be within the first six months of life.

The above studies indicate we are sending home large numbers of newborns and parents with the mistaken notion that they have a deaf child. Further, of the families that actually do have a deaf child, eighty-five percent of those are not getting intervention prior to age six months.

Therefore, I wonder if we have actually done more damage through a large number of false positive identifications - or more good through a small number of early interventions? This is clearly a failure of management. Are hearing impaired and deaf children better off since the advent of universal screening? It hardly seems so.

The cost of universal screenings in both monetary and emotional terms are substantial, while the "real world" benefits have, as of yet, to be determined. It is likely that some families are actually harmed emotionally due to the significant high false positive rates and the lengthy period of time between true identification and intervention. Additionally, some people may lose faith in medical and audiological professionals as a result of the early, often inaccurate introduction to our professions.

I believe that at this time, it would be better for our profession to focus our energies on developing management components of universal screening programs, rather than promoting universal screenings in the absence of well established, outcomes-based, clinical and emotional management protocols.

Once we have the management team trained and available, we can then realize both the dream and the promise of universal screenings.

REFERENCES:

Bess, F. and Paradise, J. (1994) Universal Screenings for Hearing Impairment: Not so Simple, Not Risk Free, Not Necessarily Beneficial and Not Presently Justified. Pediatrics, 93 (2) 330-334.

Mehl and Thomson, V. (1998) Newborn Hearing Screening: The Great Omission. Pediatrics (97) 101-103

Arehart, K et. al. (1998) State of the States: The Status of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, Assessment and Intervention Systems in 16 States. American J. Audiology 77 (2) 101-114.

National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement (1993) Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children.

Mason, J. and Hermann, K. (1998) Universal Infant Screening by Automated Auditory Brainstem response Measurement Pediatrics 101 (2) 221-228.



Rexton Reach - November 2024

David Luterman, EdD



Related Courses

Improving EHDI with CAEPs: Clinical Assessment of the Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential in Children with Hearing Loss
Presented by Elizabeth Musgrave, AuD, CCC-A
Recorded Webinar
Course: #31492Level: Intermediate1 Hour
This course will provide an overview of cortical auditory evoked potentials, current research, benefits and limitations to using CAEPs in a busy clinic, and several case studies.

A New Evidence-Based Approach for Hearing Screening of Preschool and School Age Children
Presented by James Hall, PhD
Recorded Webinar
Course: #39694Level: Introductory1 Hour
The course begins with a summary of the limitations of pure tone hearing screening followed by a review of the rationale for objective hearing screening of younger school age and preschool children. Most of the course is devoted to a description of critical steps in the development and implementation of an evidence-based efficient and effective hearing screening program for children of all ages.

Pediatric Grand Rounds: Embracing the Unexpected, in partnership with Phoenix Children’s Hospital
Presented by Deborah Flynn, AuD, CCC-A, Allie Sayer, AuD, CCC-A, Christina Dubas, AuD, CCC-A, Rachel Worcester, AuD, ABA-C, Caroline Sabatino, AuD, CCC-A, Robert Fanning, AuD, CCC-A, Wendy Steuerwald, AuD, CCC-A
Recorded Webinar
Course: #39703Level: Advanced1.5 Hours
This pediatric grand rounds presentation presents case studies of six patients with hearing concerns. Collaboration, evidence-based practice, and innovation are used to obtain the best outcomes.

Pediatric Grand Rounds: Beyond the Basics to Maximize Outcomes, presented in partnership with Nationwide Children’s Hospital
Presented by Gina M. Hounam, PhD, Holly T. Gerth, AuD, Lauren Durinka, AuD, Christine Schafer, AuD, Alecia Jayne, AuD, CCC-A, Ursula M. Findlen, PhD, Caitlin Cummings, PhD, CCC-SLP, Lauren Y. Yoshihiro, MS, CCC-SLP
Recorded Webinar
Course: #39706Level: Advanced1.5 Hours
This Grand Rounds session features audiologists and speech pathologists who specialize in diagnosing and managing pediatric patients. During this course, a panel of speech and audiology professionals shares 5 clinically applicable cases that helped them grow and innovate their clinical practice. The importance of evidence-based care is highlighted to achieve the best outcomes for pediatric patients.

Giving Children a Voice in Their Hearing Care Appointments: Using Ida Institute’s My Hearing Explained for Children in Your Daily Practice
Presented by Natalie Comas, BSpPath, LSLS Cert. AVT
Recorded Webinar
Course: #37407Level: Introductory1 Hour
How can pediatric hearing care professionals meet the challenge to support the 1989 United Nations “Convention on the Rights of the Child” rights in a family-respectful way? What are the benefits of following the principles of a new model of child-centered care and tools to ensure that children are at the center of hearing care? In this session, we will introduce a conversation guide, My Hearing Explained for Children. My Hearing Explained for Children is a free pediatric tool that helps hearing care professionals empower children and their families to make informed decisions about their hearing care.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.