New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: Effects of screening protocol on inpatient outcome measures

Judith S. Gravel, Abbey Berg, Mary Bradley, Anthony Cacace, Deborah E. Campbell, Larry Dalzell, Joseph DeCristofaro, Ellen Greenberg, Steven Gross, Mark Orlando, Joaquim Pinheiro, Joan Regan, Lynn Spivak, Frances Stevens, Beth A. Prieve

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

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 used: transient 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 fall rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)131-140
Number of pages10
JournalEar and Hearing
Volume21
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 2000

Fingerprint

Hearing
Inpatients
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Newborn Infant
Technology
Nurseries
Brain Stem Auditory Evoked Potentials
Neonatal Intensive Care Units

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project : Effects of screening protocol on inpatient outcome measures. / Gravel, Judith S.; Berg, Abbey; Bradley, Mary; Cacace, Anthony; Campbell, Deborah E.; Dalzell, Larry; DeCristofaro, Joseph; Greenberg, Ellen; Gross, Steven; Orlando, Mark; Pinheiro, Joaquim; Regan, Joan; Spivak, Lynn; Stevens, Frances; Prieve, Beth A.

In: Ear and Hearing, Vol. 21, No. 2, 04.2000, p. 131-140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gravel, JS, Berg, A, Bradley, M, Cacace, A, Campbell, DE, Dalzell, L, DeCristofaro, J, Greenberg, E, Gross, S, Orlando, M, Pinheiro, J, Regan, J, Spivak, L, Stevens, F & Prieve, BA 2000, 'New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: Effects of screening protocol on inpatient outcome measures', Ear and Hearing, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 131-140.
Gravel, Judith S. ; Berg, Abbey ; Bradley, Mary ; Cacace, Anthony ; Campbell, Deborah E. ; Dalzell, Larry ; DeCristofaro, Joseph ; Greenberg, Ellen ; Gross, Steven ; Orlando, Mark ; Pinheiro, Joaquim ; Regan, Joan ; Spivak, Lynn ; Stevens, Frances ; Prieve, Beth A. / New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project : Effects of screening protocol on inpatient outcome measures. In: Ear and Hearing. 2000 ; Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 131-140.
@article{d3373688f7564e1aa096e6bb607262fe,
title = "New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: Effects of screening protocol on inpatient outcome measures",
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 used: transient 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 fall rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.",
author = "Gravel, {Judith S.} and Abbey Berg and Mary Bradley and Anthony Cacace and Campbell, {Deborah E.} and Larry Dalzell and Joseph DeCristofaro and Ellen Greenberg and Steven Gross and Mark Orlando and Joaquim Pinheiro and Joan Regan and Lynn Spivak and Frances Stevens and Prieve, {Beth A.}",
year = "2000",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "131--140",
journal = "Ear and Hearing",
issn = "0196-0202",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project

T2 - Effects of screening protocol on inpatient outcome measures

AU - Gravel, Judith S.

AU - Berg, Abbey

AU - Bradley, Mary

AU - Cacace, Anthony

AU - Campbell, Deborah E.

AU - Dalzell, Larry

AU - DeCristofaro, Joseph

AU - Greenberg, Ellen

AU - Gross, Steven

AU - Orlando, Mark

AU - Pinheiro, Joaquim

AU - Regan, Joan

AU - Spivak, Lynn

AU - Stevens, Frances

AU - Prieve, Beth A.

PY - 2000/4

Y1 - 2000/4

N2 - 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 used: transient 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 fall rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.

AB - 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 used: transient 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 fall rates at hospital discharge in both the WBN and NICU nurseries than use of a single-technology (TEOAE) hearing screening protocol.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18744426361&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18744426361&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10777020

AN - SCOPUS:18744426361

VL - 21

SP - 131

EP - 140

JO - Ear and Hearing

JF - Ear and Hearing

SN - 0196-0202

IS - 2

ER -