New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: inpatient outcome measures

Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

Background

An effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group.

Methods

Five databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text.

Results

Fifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB.

Conclusion

Although poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03218-0.

Maternal Factors Predicting Loss to Follow-Up from Newborn Hearing Screenings in New Jersey

Because hearing loss in children can result in developmental deficits, early detection and intervention are critical. This article identifies a constellation of maternal factors that predict loss to follow-up (LTF) at the point of rescreening-the first follow-up for babies who did not pass the hearing screening performed at birth-through New Jersey's early hearing detection and intervention program. Maternal factors are critical to consider, as mothers are often the primary decision makers around children's health care. All data were obtained from the state's department of health and included babies born between June 2015 and June 2017. Logistic regression was used to predict LTF. Findings indicate that non-Hispanic Black mothers, younger mothers, mothers with previous live births, and mothers with obesity were more likely to be LTF. Hispanic mothers and those enrolled in the state's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program were less likely to be LTF. Mothers most at risk for LTF should be targeted for intervention to help children with hearing loss achieve the benefits from early intervention. Being a WIC recipient is a protective factor for LTF; therefore, elements of WIC could be used to reduce the state's LTF rate.

The History of Pediatric and Adult Hearing Screening

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To document the history of hearing seeing in children and adults.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature search in all languages was carried out with the terms of hearing screening from the following sources: Pub Med, Science Direct, World Catalog, Index Medicus, Google scholar, Google Books, National Library of Medicine, Welcome historical library and The Library of Congress.

METHODS

The primary sources consisting of books, scientific reports, public documents, governmental reports, and other written material were analyzed to document the history of hearing screening.

RESULTS

The concept of screening for medical conditions that, when found, could influence some form of the outcome of the malady came about during the end of 19th century. The first applications of screening were to circumscribe populations, schoolchildren, military personnel, and railroad employees. During the first half of the 20th century, screening programs were extended to similar populations and were able to be expanded on the basis of the improved technology of hearing testing. The concept of universal screening was first applied to the inborn errors of metabolism of newborn infants and particularly the assessment of phenylketonuria in 1963 by Guthrie and Susi. A limited use of this technique has been the detection of genes resulting in hearing loss. The use of a form of hearing testing either observational or physiological as a screen for all newborns was first articulated by Larry Fisch in 1957 and by the end of the 20th century newborn infant screening for hearing loss became the standard almost every nation worldwide.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing screening for newborn infants is utilized worldwide, schoolchildren less so and for adults many industrial workers and military service undergo hearing screening, but this is not a general practice for screening the elderly.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 131:S1-S25, 2021.

Pilot Study of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening in Japan: District-Based Screening Program in Okayama

Objectives: Newborn hearing screening was started in Okayama Prefecture in 2001 as part of a nationwide pilot study in Japan. Nearly 50,000 infants have been screened to date, and an observational study and more than 2 years of follow-up of this population are described in this report.

Methods: Between June 2001 and March 2005 (45 months), 47,346 neonates were screened with automated auditory brain stem response systems and followed up for at least 2 years. This total corresponds to 95% of the infants born in the 44 gynecologic institutions in this district.

Results: After undergoing the screening process twice, 248 infants (0.52%) received referrals; 108 of them had apparent bilaterally affected hearing, and 140 had apparent unilaterally affected hearing. Among the bilateral cases, hearing impairment was diagnosed in 40 infants, for a total prevalence of hearing impairment of 0.08%. In 3 additional infants who received a bilateral pass result and 1 infant who received a unilateral pass result, hearing impairment that was progressive or of late onset was subsequently diagnosed. The positive and negative predictive values were calculated as 40% and 99.993%, respectively.

Conclusions: The screening program was carefully designed to work in the Japanese society and to be well managed in Okayama Prefecture.

Newborn hearing screening: analysis and outcomes after 100,000 births in Upper-Normandy French region

OBJECTIVES

Neonatal hearing impairment is a common disorder with a prevalence of 1 to 2‰ worldwide, with significant consequences on overall development when rehabilitated too late. New-born hearing screening has been implemented in the 1990s in most European countries and the USA. The Upper-Normandy region of France has been conducting a pilot program since 1999. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate and critically analyse it.

METHODS

The Upper-Normandy universal new-born hearing screening program is performed in two steps. Between 1999 and 2004, first, we administered a Transient Evoked Oto Acoustic Emission (TEOAE) test was administered a few days after birth for healthy newborns without risk factors. For newborns admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or presenting risk factors, was administered an automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) test prior to discharge. Second, newborns who failed the initial hearing screening were retested as outpatients using TEOAE. Since 2004, infants who failed the initial screen were tested with AABR 3 to 4 weeks later as outpatients, providing an opportunity to compare the two protocols.

RESULTS

Overall screening coverage in the Upper-Normandy region is 99.8%. First step coverage is 99.58% in well-infant nurseries and 97.09% in the NICU. The test-retest procedure during the first step and the use of AABR for the second resulted in higher follow-up rates and lower false positive rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The Upper-Normandy region universal newborn hearing screening program facilitated diagnosis and rehabilitation of infants before age of 9 months, most notably when severe to profound hearing impairment was found.

The Last Mile: Using Fax Machines to Exchange Data between Clinicians and Public Health

There is overlap in a wide range of activities to support both public health and clinical care. Examples include immunization registries (IR), newborn screening (NBS), disease reporting, lead screening programs, and more. Health information exchanges create an opportunity to share data between the clinical and public health environments, providing decision support to clinicians and surveillance and tracking information to public health. We developed mechanisms to support two-way communication between clinicians in the Indiana Health information Exchange (IHIE) and the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH). This paper describes challenges we faced and design decisions made to overcome them. We developed systems to help clinicians communicate with the ISDH IR and with the NBS program. Challenges included (1) a minority of clinicians who use electronic health records (EHR), (2) lack of universal patient identifiers, (3) identifying physicians responsible for newborns, and (4) designing around complex security policies and firewalls. To communicate electronically with clinicians without EHRs, we utilize their fax machines. Our rule-based decision support system generates tailored forms that are automatically faxed to clinicians. The forms include coded input fields that capture data for automatic transfer into the IHIE when they are faxed back. Because the same individuals have different identifiers, and newborns' names change, it is challenging to match patients across systems. We use a stochastic matching algorithm to link records. We scan electronic clinical messages (HL7 format) coming into IHIE to find clinicians responsible for newborns. We have designed an architecture to link IHIE, ISDH, and our systems.

Hearing screening in a well-infant nursery: profile of automated ABR-fail/OAE-pass

OBJECTIVES

The goals were to examine the prevalence of a screening outcome pattern of auditory brainstem response fail/otoacoustic emission pass (ABR-F/OAE-P) in a cohort of infants in well-infant nurseries (WINs), to profile children at risk for auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, and to compare inpatient costs for 2 screening protocols using automated auditory brainstem response (ABR) and otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening.

METHODS

A total of 10.6% (n = 2167) of 20 529 infants admitted to WINs in 2006-2009 were screened for auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder risk by using an experimental protocol (automated ABR testing first, followed by OAE testing if the automated ABR test was not passed). A second WIN cohort (n = 281) was screened by using the standard WIN protocol for the facility (OAE testing first, followed by automated ABR testing if the OAE test was not passed). Comparisons were made regarding preparation and testing times and personnel costs.

RESULTS

The ABR-F/OAE-P outcome was found for 0.92% of infants in WINs in inpatient testing and none in outpatient rescreening. The time for test preparation was 4 times longer and that for test administration was 2.6 times longer for the experimental protocol, compared with the standard protocol. Inpatient costs for the experimental protocol included 3 times greater personnel time costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 1% of infants in WINs had ABR-F/OAE-P screening outcomes as inpatients and none as outpatients. These results suggest that prevalence is low for infants cared for in WINs and use of OAE testing as a screening tool in WINs is not unreasonable.

Estudo da efetividade de um programa de triagem auditiva neonatal universal

Este artigo discute a insuficiência de participação familiar num programa de triagem auditiva neonatal universal. Por se tratar da detecção precoce de alterações auditivas, com a possibilidade de redução dos prejuízos causados por estas, torna-se fundamental a participação familiar durante todo o processo de diagnóstico e reabilitação. O objetivo do texto é compreender a ausência das mães dos lactentes nascidos entre maio de 2002 e junho de 2004 no Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher (CAISM-Unicamp) ao retorno para a segunda avaliação auditiva. Através da caracterização do perfil sociodemográfico das mães, alguns aspectos foram relacionados ao não retorno ao serviço de triagem e três mães selecionadas para entrevista. Concluiu-se que três traços do perfil materno se destacam dentre as que menos retornaram ao serviço: possuir mais de um filho; ter frequência de apenas uma a três consultas pré-natais; e não possuir companheiro. A principal alegação para o não retorno foi de que as perdas auditivas seriam passíveis de identificação pela observação em casa. Assim, além de ser constituída por fatores sociais, a ausência das mães reflete práticas culturais. Considera-se necessária a criação de uma rede de serviços de saúde que oriente gestantes e mães de lactentes sobre as alterações no desenvolvimento infantil.

Changes in transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in the first month of life

OBJECTIVE

Current Joint Committee on Infant Hearing guidelines recommend the use of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) as a screening tool to identify hearing loss for newborns cared for in the well-baby nursery. Newborns who do not pass the TEOAE screen before leaving the hospital are typically rescreened as outpatients by 1 mo of age, at which time, approximately 50 to 70% pass screening criteria. To better understand why many infants are referred at initial screening but pass at the rescreening, more complete knowledge of developmental differences in the TEOAE levels, noise floor, or a combination of both for infants who pass and fail birth screening is needed. In addition, it has been shown that infants with occluding ear-canal debris are more likely to not pass TEOAE screening at the hospital than those without occluding ear-canal debris. This study explores whether changes in TEOAE levels in half-octave frequency bands are related to changes in ear-canal debris over the first month of life.

DESIGN

Seventy-nine neonates from a well-baby nursery had their hearing screened before leaving the hospital and again at approximately 1 mo of age. All participants passed the follow-up screening. Overall TEOAE levels and levels in half-octave frequency bands centered at 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 kHz were measured. Judgments of ear-canal debris were made by otoscopy and were rated using one of three categories at both visits.

RESULTS

TEOAE levels in infants significantly increased from birth to 1 mo of age across all frequencies tested, regardless of whether they passed or failed the screening at birth. The increase in TEOAE level was frequency dependent, with the greatest increases occurring in the highest frequency bands. No significant correlation between debris change and frequency-specific changes was found for either ear. Infants who failed the screening at birth but who subsequently passed at 1 mo of age had significantly lower TEOAE levels at the rescreening than did infants with passing TEOAE levels at birth. However, pass/fail status at birth was only a weak predictor of TEOAE levels at 1 mo of age.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in TEOAE levels during the first month of life is frequency dependent, with greater increases occurring at higher frequencies. Increased TEOAE levels were not associated with changes in ear-canal debris.

Neonatal hearing screening in Albania: Results from an ongoing universal screening program

The paper describes the outcomes of an ongoing universal hearing screening program in Tirana, Albania. The main objectives of the project were the evaluation of the feasibility of a neonatal hearing screening program in Albania, and an evaluation of the prevalence of risk factors in the NICU environment. One thousand five hundred and sixty-one (1561) infants from both the WB and NICU were screened with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). A detailed history of risk factors was collected in each case, thus it was possible to evaluate the main factors influencing the output of the screening program. It was concluded that the program had the capacity to identify infants with congenital hearing loss provided that an informative component is well-structured and delivered. Also, although the prevalence of risk factors appeared high, the reduction of 'case leakage' would allow the precise estimation of the incidence of hearing loss in the Albanian population.

Newborn hearing screening follow-up: factors affecting hearing aid fitting by 6 months of age

PURPOSE

To determine the extent to which the goal of hearing aid fitting by 6 months of age is being achieved and to identify barriers to achieving that goal.

METHOD

Screening and follow-up records from 114,121 infants born at 6 hospitals were collected over a 6-year period. Infants diagnosed with permanent hearing loss requiring amplification were categorized as fit on time, fit late, or lost to follow-up. Seven factors were empirically identified as potential barriers to timely intervention.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent of referred infants returned for follow-up evaluation. Hearing aids were fit on 107 of the 192 infants requiring amplification. Thirty-nine percent were fit on time, and 61% were fit late or lost to follow-up. Unilateral hearing loss and late diagnosis were statistically significant (p < .0001) predictors for late fitting and loss to follow-up. Conductive hearing loss and coverage by Medicaid were also statistically significant (p < .0001) predictors for loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

High return rate for follow-up does not ensure hearing aid fitting by 6 months of age. Infants with unilateral hearing loss are at particular risk of being lost to follow-up.

Preauricular skin tags and ear pits are associated with permanent hearing impairment in newborns

OBJECTIVES

Our goals were to (1) study the prevalence of hearing impairment in a large cohort of infants with preauricular skin tags or ear pits and compare it with that among all other newborns participating in our universal newborn hearing screening program during the same period and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions as a hearing-screening tool in this population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During the study period of 7.5 years, 68484 infants were screened for hearing impairment, of whom 637 (0.93%) had preauricular skin tags and/or ear pits. The population was divided into 3 groups: (1) a low-risk group for hearing impairment; (2) a high-risk group for hearing impairment; and (3) a very high-risk group for hearing impairment. The screening results and audiological follow-up for these infants were examined retrospectively.

RESULTS

A significantly higher prevalence of permanent hearing impairment was found among infants with preauricular skin tags or ear pits (8 of 1000), compared with infants without tags or pits (1.5 of 1000). In the low-risk group, the prevalence was 3.4 of 1000, compared with 0.5 of 1000 in infants with and without preauricular tags or pits, respectively. In the high-risk group, the prevalence was 77 of 1000, compared with 20 of 1000 in infants with and without preauricular tags or pits, respectively. The odds ratio for hearing impairment associated with preauricular skin tags and/or ear pits after adjusting for level of risk group was 4.9. All infants diagnosed with permanent hearing impairment, with the exception of 1 with late-onset impairment, were detected by in-hospital transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Infants with preauricular skin tags or ear pits are at increased risk for permanent hearing impairment. Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions were found to be an effective hearing-screening tool in this population.

Neonatal hearing screening: a combined click evoked and tone burst otoacoustic emission approach

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated an alternative transient evoked otoacoustic emissions method for screening hearing in newborn babies that may reduce the referral rate of initial screening.

METHODS

A total of 1,033 neonates (2,066 ears) from two hospitals were recruited. Subjects had their hearing screened in both ears using a combined approach-both click evoked OAEs (CEOAEs) and 1kHz tone burst evoked OAEs (TBOAEs).

RESULTS

1kHz TBOAEs were more robust than CEOAEs in terms of emission response level and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at both 1 and 1.5kHz frequency bands. The prevalence rate for CEOAE and TBOAE responses in these two frequency bands was significantly different. The combined protocol significantly reduced the referral rate-by almost 2 percentage points for first time screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a combined 1kHz TBOAE/CEOAE screening protocol is a feasible and effective way to reduce referral rates, and hence false positive rates, in neonatal hearing screening programs.

Effects of Maturation on Parameters Used for Pass/Fail Criteria in Neonatal Hearing Screening Programmes Using Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions

We aimed to investigate the incidence of false alarms that occurred with the pass/fail criteria used in a published series of neonatal hearing screening programmes, as a function of age. We analysed the database of 19137 normally hearing babies (38274 ears) tested in the Wessex Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Project. Otoacoustic emissions were recorded prior to discharge from maternity units, using IL088 equipment. We assessed the pass/fail rate using the Wessex criteria and 10 other pass/fail criteria published in the literature. Using Pearson's correlation coefficient, a statistically significant correlation between signal-to-noise ratio at each of the frequency bands 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 kHz and babies' age in hours at the 0.01 level was identified. The correlation was also significant (0.01 level) between age and frequency reproducibility in each of the bands at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 kHz as well as the whole reproducibility. The number of false alarms reduced significantly after the first 24 h of life with all the criteria examined. We conclude that in the first hours after birth due to insufficient maturation of the otoacoustic emission, there is a high rate of false alarms. This increase in the false alarm rate, whilst dependent on the criteria used, occurs with all criteria. This leads to the consideration of whether the establishment of age-dependent pass/fail criteria could reduce the false alarm rate and the subsequent strain on diagnostic centres.

A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: introduction and overview of the study

PURPOSE

This article is the 1st in a series of 4 articles on a recently completed multistate study of newborn hearing screening.

METHOD

The study examined the efficacy of the 2-stage otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response (OAE/A-ABR) protocol for identifying hearing loss in newborns.

RESULTS

The study found that the 2-stage OAE/A-ABR protocol did miss a significant number of babies who exhibited a permanent hearing loss by 1 year of age. Three subsequent articles will describe the research design and results in detail, discuss the behavioral assessment of infants, and summarize the implications of the study for policy, practice, and research.

The prevalence of congenital and early-onset hearing loss in Jordanian and Israeli infants

The objective of the study was to investigate the prevalence of congenital and early-onset hearing loss, and the influence of the known risk factors for hearing loss on infants in Jordan and Israel. Subjects were a total of nearly 17,000 infants from both countries, including infants with and without risk factors for hearing loss. The hearing screening protocol included distortion product otoacoustic emission, followed in case of repeated OAE referral or high risk (HR) infant by diagnostic auditory brainstem responses. The results indicate that the prevalence and severity of hearing loss amongst Jordanian infants (1.37%) is remarkably higher as compared to the Israeli infants (0.48%). The overall prevalence of bilateral SNHL was seven times more in the Jordanian infants, 18 times in non-risk, and three times in the HR infants relative to the Israeli infants. Risk factors including family history, hyperbilirubinemia, bacterial meningitis, and associated syndromes were more prevalent amongst Jordanian infants. This unique study underscores the importance of sharing and exchanging information to create empirical data to guide health-care providers in adapting protocols to the local constraints in developing countries.

Low prevalence of hearing impairment among very low birthweight infants as detected by universal neonatal hearing screening

OBJECTIVES

To (a) study the prevalence of hearing impairment in a cohort of very low birthweight (VLBW) infants and (b) evaluate the effectiveness of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) as a first stage in-hospital hearing screening tool in this population.

STUDY DESIGN

The study group was a cohort of 346 VLBW infants born in 1998-2000 at The Sheba Medical Center. The prevalence of hearing impairment in the study group was compared with that of all other newborn infants participating in a universal newborn hearing screening programme during the same period. To evaluate the effectiveness of TEOAE, a control group of 1205 healthy newborns who had no known risk factors for hearing impairment was selected. The results and follow up of hearing screening for these infants were examined retrospectively.

RESULTS

Only one VLBW infant (0.3%) was diagnosed with bilateral sensory-neural hearing loss. In addition, nine infants (2.7%) were diagnosed with conductive hearing loss. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia and low Apgar score were the most significant factors for predicting the occurrence of conductive hearing loss. The percentage of VLBW infants who successfully passed the in-hospital TEOAE screening was 87.2, compared with 92.2% in the full term control group. No false negative cases were detected on follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows a low incidence of sensory-neural hearing loss in a cohort of VLBW infants and a relatively high incidence of conductive hearing loss. TEOAE screening was found to be an effective first stage in-hospital hearing screening tool in this population.

A Case Study of an Emerging Community-Based Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Program: Part I. Parents’ Compliance

Purpose

This is the first of a 2-part series of articles that describe and assess an emerging community-based early hearing detection and intervention program. This study investigated parents’ compliance for accessing services for their infants at 5 levels in the process from referrals through subsequent follow-up during a 3-year period. Compliance was defined as parents’ follow-through with professionals’ recommendations and appointments for their infants’ hearing health care.

Method

Investigators retrospectively reviewed the charts of 51 infants who were referred from a regional hospital’s newborn hearing screening program to a private practice office and were seen from March 2000 to February 2003.

Results

Compliance was 100% for initial hospital inpatient screening and for outpatient rescreening but decreased throughout the referral process. All of the parents of babies with hearing loss complied, and their infants were diagnosed by age 3 months and received audiologic or otologic intervention by age 6 months. Only half of those who needed and opted for hearing aids complied and began habilitative intervention by age 6 months.

Conclusions

Although compliance for initial and follow-up screening was excellent and met goals for national benchmarks, compliance for intervention services showed room for improvement.

A Multisite Study to Examine the Efficacy of the Otoacoustic Emission/Automated Auditory Brainstem Response Newborn Hearing Screening Protocol

Purpose: This article examines whether changes in hearing screening practices are warranted based on the results of the recent series of studies by J. L. Johnson, K. R. White, J. E. Widen, J. S. Gravel, B. R. Vohr, M. James, T. Kennalley, A. B. Maxon, L. Spivak, M. Sullivan-Mahoney, Y. Weirather, and S. Meyer (Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, James, et al., 2005; Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, Vohr, et al., 2005; White et al., 2005; Widen et al., 2005) that found a significant number of infants who passed an automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR) screening after failing an initial otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening later were found to have permanent hearing loss in one or both ears.

Method: Similar to the approach used by F. H. Bess and J. Paradise (1994), this article addresses the public health tenets that need to be in place before screening programs, or in this case, a change in screening practice (use of a 2-step screening protocol) can be justified.

Results: There are no data to suggest that a 2-step OAE/A-ABR screening protocol should be avoided.

Conclusion: Research is needed before any change in public policy and practice surrounding current early hearing detection and intervention programs could be supported.

The Effect of Different ‘Pass-Fail’ Criteria on the Results of a Newborn Hearing Screening Program

'Pass' criteria in newborn hearing screening programs are important, since they affect the operating characteristics of the programs. In the present study, we intended to compare the results of two screening procedures, using different 'pass' criteria, in two samples from the same pool of screened newborns. The subjects were divided into two study groups, screened consecutively during 6 months. Testing and all procedures were exactly the same in both groups, differing only in the 'pass' criteria. In the first group a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 3 dB in the frequency bands of 1-2, 2-3 and 3-4 kHz was considered necessary for a 'pass', whereas a signal-to-noise ratio > or =6 dB was used in the second group, at the same frequency bands. During the period of the study, no other minor or major modification of the protocol was applied. The comparison of the screening predischarge results between the two groups showed no statistically significant differences in the 'pass-refer' results. Thus, it appears that the 3-dB signal-to-noise ratio is as valid as the 6-dB criterion, and it may be confidently used, especially in settings where rescreening is not available.

Neonatal hearing screening in a neonatal intensive care unit using distortion-product otoacoustic emissions

OBJECTIVE

To determine pass and refer rates, and identify risk factors relating to refer responses, in neonates screened using distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 435 neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of the Philippine General Hospital between May and October 2000 were screened using DPOAEs within 48 h of admission.

RESULTS

The male:female ratio in the sample was 1.05. In total, 56% of neonates were born preterm, the mean birthweight was 2,428.39 +/- 710.39 g and 8.9% weighed < 1,500 g. In total, 47.9% were delivered by Caesarian section and 44.9% were delivered vaginally. Almost 14% of neonates had 1-min Apgar scores of < 6, and 4% had 5-min Apgar scores of < 7. Approximately 95% of neonates had a poor perinatal history. Using pediatric aging it was noted that 46% of these neonates were born preterm. and 30.4% were small for gestational age. At least one neonatal disease was found in 42% of neonates, whilst 95.7% had to be given medication. The bilateral refer rate was 29.1%. Two-by-two analysis of risk factors for hearing loss and DPOAE measurements showed that only male sex seemed to have a significant association with a refer response. Neonates weighing < 1,500 g at birth showed a marginally significant association with a refer response (p = 0.07). All other neonates showed no crude association with DPOAE measurements.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary data show that a high proportion of NICU patients may have poor outer hair cell function, and thus poor hearing. In order to develop an effective neonatal hearing screening program, further studies of prevalence and risk factors should be pursued in the same setting.

Projected cost-effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening

OBJECTIVES

Early identification of hearing impairment may improve language outcomes and subsequent school and occupational performance of the deaf. Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), currently mandated by 32 states, can reduce the median age of identification of hearing impairment from 12 to 18 months to 6 months or less. However, because false-negative tests must be minimized, the prevalence of congenital deafness is low, and screening tests are imperfect, UNHS results in many false-positive results and has a low positive predictive value (PPV). The objective of this study was to evaluate UNHS and selective screening in terms of both short- and long-term benefits, harms, and financial costs and to identify steps in the screening process that could be improved to increase cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis, conducted from the societal perspective, compared the projected outcomes of 1) no newborn hearing screening, 2) selective newborn hearing screening, and 3) UNHS for a hypothetical state birth cohort of 80 000 infants. Probability and cost estimates for the decision model were obtained from published studies, expert opinion, and national and state sources. The main outcomes were incremental cost per infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months, which included only the cost of screening and diagnostic evaluation; and incremental cost per deaf child with normal language, which also included the costs of medical care, education and assistive devices, and lost productivity over the lifetime of the deaf individual.

RESULTS

Selective screening identified 62 of the 128 deaf infants in the birth cohort, referred 0.18% of all infants for diagnostic evaluation, and had a PPV of 43%. UNHS identified 116 of the 128 deaf infants, referred 1.6% of all infants, and had a PPV of 8.8%. Our model simulated real-world conditions in which some infants whose deafness is identified at screening do not receive a definitive diagnosis of being deaf before 6 months; and a portion of deaf and hard-of-hearing infants who 1) have false-negative screening test results, 2) are not screened, or 3) fail the hearing screen but are not immediately followed up with diagnostic evaluation nonetheless receive a diagnosis by 6 months of age. In the absence of newborn hearing screening, approximately 30 deaf infants were identified by 6 months of age by passive detection alone at a cost of $69 000. The selective screening protocol, when compared with no newborn hearing screening, resulted in an additional 36 infants whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months at an additional cost of approximately $600 000, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness of approximately $16 000 per additional infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months. Compared with selective screening, the UNHS protocol resulted in 33 additional infants whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months of age at an additional cost of approximately $1.5 million, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness of approximately $44 000 per additional infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months of age. Increasing the rate of follow-up to diagnostic evaluation from the base-case estimate of 77% to 100% decreased the incremental cost of UNHS to $38 000 per additional infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months. Under the base-case assumptions about lifetime savings that result from normal language with early intervention, UNHS resulted in normal language achievement for more deaf children and was cost saving in the long term compared with both selective screening and no screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term cost-effectiveness of UNHS is comparable to the cost per case diagnosed of other newborn screening programs and could be improved by increasing the rate of follow-up to diagnostic evaluation after positive screening test results. If early identification results in improved language abilities, lower educational and vocational costs, and increased lifetime productivity, then UNHS has the potential for long-term cost savings compared with selective hearing screening and no screening. To understand the actual long-term economic effects of UNHS, better evidence is needed regarding the impact of early intervention on language outcomes and subsequent changes in educational costs and lifetime productivity.

Late radiation effects on hearing, vestibular function, and taste in brain tumor patients

PURPOSE

To investigate late radiation effects on hearing, vestibular function, and taste after conventional radiotherapy in brain tumor patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Hearing, vestibular function, and taste were assessed in 33 brain tumor patients irradiated unilaterally to the tumor-bearing hemisphere and the temporal bone. Median observation time after completion of radiotherapy was 13 years; the fraction dose was 1.8 Gy, and mean radiation dose was 53.1 Gy.

RESULTS

Deep ulceration in the external ear canal and osteoradionecrosis on the irradiated side was seen in three patients. Reduced hearing was found for air and bone conduction of the irradiated side compared to the opposite side (0.25-2 kHz: 6.1 dB, 4 kHz: 10.3 dB, 6 kHz: 15.6 dB, and 8 kHz: 16.5 dB). For bone conduction, the corresponding figures were 0.25-2 kHz: 5.5 dB and 4 kHz: 8.2 dB. Three patients had a canal paresis of the irradiated side, and three patients had affection of the chorda tympani.

CONCLUSION

Irradiation of the temporal bone with doses usually given in the treatment of patients with brain tumors may cause osteoradionecrosis, sensorineural hearing loss, dysfunction of the vestibular inner ear, and loss of taste. Head-and-neck examination should be included in the follow-up of long-term survivors.

Universal newborn screening: a dream realized or a nightmare in the making?

There is a very strong movement to develop universal newborn hearing screening. This effort is the end product of a long international research effort to determine the most effective means to screen newborns. Now that OAE and ABR together offer a superior mechanism to achieve universal screening, problems related to middle ear effusion, non-high-risk children and adequate resources for all aspects of identification, diagnosis and treatment have come to the fore. Further, what to do in the developing world is also a major problem as audiology embarks on this exciting new frontier. This paper discusses some of the issues, raises some concerns and offers a few small solutions.

[Systematic screening of deafness at a maternity ward using evoked otoacoustic emissions: practical aspects and parental attitudes]

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the feasibility and parental attitudes towards a hearing screening programme using evoked otoacoustic emissions, implemented in a maternity ward in France.

METHODS

A hearing screening test using transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) was proposed to each baby, and an anonymous questionnaire was given to parents to assess their attitudes towards the screening procedure.

RESULTS

Although the refusal of the test reached 16% (mainly during the first two weeks of the program), more than 92% of parents judged the test as being useful, and 65% wished it to be systematically done. However, nearly 35% of parents admitted to have a low level anxiety about being unnecessarily worried by the test results. One hundred and twenty-four babies were screened. Fifty three per cent of the tests have been performed in less than ten minutes, with an average of 12.2 minutes. This duration does not include delays due to programme and babies management. False positive rate (uni or bilateral fail) was 10.5% at the first stage. Repeating the test before discharge decreased the false positive rate to 6.5%.

CONCLUSION

Although limited in time, this study shows that a systematic hearing screening programme using TEOAE is possible and should be done in France. False positive rate was below 7%, and the test was considered as useful by more than 90% of parents, although knowledge about deafness in childhood and its consequences were clearly insufficient.

Evolution of a universal infant hearing screening program in an inner city hospital

This study reports the evolution of a newborn hearing screening program which began in 1988. Data are reported from the period of time that universal newborn hearing screening was initiated, i.e. April 1996 to December 2000 (total screened=7128 babies). From 1996 to the present, the program has developed to the current form. During 2000, 1713 infants in the well-baby nursery and neonatal intensive care unit were screened at a cost of 18.44 dollars per child. Thirty (1.7%) infants failed the screen, of which 26 (86%) returned for follow-up testing. Fifteen infants were documented with hearing loss, 10 with conductive and five with sensorineural losses. The false positive rate was 0.96% and the overall sensorineural impairment rate was 1/343.

Universal neonatal hearing screening: past, present, and future

After a brief review of the history of newborn hearing screening including the Downs behavioral testing procedure, the Crib-o-gram and similar devices, and the use of auropalpebral reflex and otoacoustic emissions, there is a discussion of key issues that need to be resolved before universal hearing screening is introduced. Included are questions regarding the target population(s) of screening programs, well baby versus NICU screening, dealing with false-positives and the effects on parent-child relationships, and finally, the availability of resources for screening and follow-up. The results of a recent study in the United Kingdom that assessed the current state of audiology services and found there is a difference between existing standards and what is actually being done in practice, are presented and considered in terms of current trends in the United States to move ahead with universal screening without a solid database of information regarding the preparedness of clinical centers to deal with the need for services that will result from the initiation of universal programs. Caution is urged.

Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: evaluation of transient evoked otoacoustic emission, distortion product otoacoustic emission, and auditory brain stem response test performance

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and auditory brain stem responses (ABRs) as tools for identification of neonatal hearing impairment.

DESIGN

A total of 4911 infants including 4478 graduates of neonatal intensive care units, 353 well babies with one or more risk factors for hearing loss (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 1994) and 80 well babies without risk factor who did not pass one or more neonatal test were targeted as the potential subject pool on which test performance would be assessed. During the neonatal period, they were evaluated using TEOAEs in response to an 80 dB pSPL click, DPOAE responses to two stimulus conditions (L1 = L2 = 75 dB SPL and L1 = 65 dB SPL L2 = 50 dB SPL), and ABR elicited by a 30 dB nHL click. In an effort to describe test performance, these "at-risk" infants were asked to return for behavioral audiologic assessments, using visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) at 8 to 12 mo corrected age, regardless of neonatal test results. Sixty-four percent of these subjects returned and reliable VRA data were obtained on 95.6% of these returnees. This approach is in contrast to previous studies in which, by necessity, efforts were made to follow only those infants who "failed" the neonatal screening tests. The accuracy of the neonatal measures in predicting hearing status at 8 to 12 mo corrected age was determined. Only those infants who provided reliable, monaural VRA test results were included in the analysis. Separate analyses were performed without regard to intercurrent events (i.e., events between the neonatal and VRA tests that could cause their results to disagree), and then after accounting for the possible influence of intercurrent events such as otitis media and late-onset or progressive hearing loss.

RESULTS

Low refer rates were achieved for the stopping criteria used in the present study, especially when a protocol similar to the one recommended in the National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus Conference Report was followed. These analyses, however, do not completely describe test performance because they did not compare neonatal screening test results with a gold standard test of hearing. Test performance, as measured by the area under a relative operating characteristic curve, were similar for all three neonatal tests when neonatal test results were compared with VRA data obtained at 8 to 12 mo corrected age. However, ABRs were more successful at determining auditory status at 1 kHz, compared with the otoacoustic emission (OAE) tests. Performance was more similar across all three tests when they were used to identify hearing loss at 2 and 4 kHz. No test performed perfectly. Using either the two- or three-frequency pure-tone average (PTA), with a fixed false alarm rate of 20%, hit rates for the neonatal tests, in general, exceeded 80% when hearing impairment was defined as behavioral thresholds > or =30 dB HL. All three tests performed similarly when a two-frequency (2 and 4 kHz) PTA was used as the gold standard; OAE test performance decreased when a three-frequency PTA (adding 1 kHz) was used as the gold standard definition. For both PTA and all three neonatal screening measures, however, hit rate increased as the magnitude of hearing loss increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Singly, all three neonatal hearing screening tests resulted in low refer rates, especially if referrals for follow-up were made only for the cases in which stopping criteria were not met in both ears. Following a protocol similar to that recommended in the National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus Conference report resulted in refer rates that were less than 4%. TEOAEs at 80 dB pSPL, DPOAE at L1 = 65, L2 = 50 dB SPL and ABR at 30 dB nHL measured during the neonatal period, and as implemented in the current study, performed similarly at predicting behavioral hearing status at 8 to 12

Effect of neonatal test environment on recording transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of test environment on recording transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) in neonates.

METHODS

Thirty-two infants from the newborn nursery (NBN) who passed a screening auditory brainstem response (SABR) test and were at least 34 weeks' postconceptional age were studied. One ear of each newborn was tested using TEOAE in 5 different test environments: open bassinet in the NBN (E1), working isolet located in the NBN (E2), nonfunctioning isolet in the NBN (E3), nonfunctioning isolet in a quiet room off the NBN (E4), and open bassinet in a quiet room (E5). The number of high noise samples (HNS), the test duration (in seconds), the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; in dB) measured at bandwidths centered at 1.6, 2.4, 3.2, and 4.0 kHz, and the percentage of neonates with a fail screening outcome based on a common pass-fail screening criteria were compared in the 5 test environments.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences in the number of HNS accumulated in the 5 test environments (F = 6.79). The use of a nonfunctioning isolet in both the NBN and within a room off the NBN (E3 and E4, respectively) resulted in significantly fewer HNS than when TEOAEs were recorded in the other 3 test environments (E1, E2, and E5). Mean test duration was significantly different among the 5 locations (F = 6. 53). Posthoc analyses revealed that test time in E3 and E4 was significantly shorter than in E1 and E2. The percentage of newborns with a fail (</=3 dB SNR at 2.4, 3.2, and 4.0 kHz) outcome was lowest in E3 (6.3%) and the same in E1 and E4 (12.5%). A high percentage of infants received a fail outcome when tested in both the working isolet and in the open bassinet in a room off the nursery (21.8% and 25%, respectively). SNR (in dB) for bandwidths centered at 1.6, 2.4, and 3.2 kHz was negatively correlated with the HNS in the working isolet. SNR (in dB) at 4.0 kHz was negatively correlated with the HNS when TEOAEs were recorded in the open bassinet in a room adjacent to the NBN. The number of HNS was correlated with overall test time in each environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Test environments typically used for newborn hearing screening can influence the recording of TEOAEs. Performing the TEOAE test with the neonate placed in a nonfunctioning isolet located in either the NBN or in a room off of the NBN resulted in the most desirable outcomes (shortest test times, fewest HNS, highest SNR (in dB), and fewest fail outcomes).

The New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: introduction and overview

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of universal newborn hearing screening, including intervention of identified infants, in the state of New York.

DESIGN

The New York State Department of Health issued a request for proposals that invited regional perinatal centers to apply for funding to implement universal newborn hearing screening. Hospitals were free to choose their own protocols but were to use physiologically based measures to screen infants for possible hearing loss. Criteria for passing the screening measures were common across sites. Infants failing the screening were to have diagnostic testing. Identified infants were to be followed by the state's Early Intervention Program and its associated Infant-Child Health Assessment Program.

RESULTS

Seven regional perinatal centers (eight hospitals) representing the various regions of the state were funded for 3 yr to implement universal newborn hearing screening and follow-up of identified infants. Detailed data analysis was performed for inpatient, outpatient, and intervention outcome measures and for the various protocols. Most of the outcome measures were analyzed in terms of year of program operation, nursery type, and geographic region of the state.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal newborn hearing screening was feasible in regional perinatal centers across the state of New York. The average ages of identification of hearing loss, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in early intervention were less than those reported in published studies where universal newborn hearing screening was not in place.

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

The New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: ages of hearing loss identification, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in early intervention

OBJECTIVE

To determine the ages of hearing loss identification, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in early intervention through a multi-center, state-wide universal newborn hearing screening project.

DESIGN

Universal newborn hearing screening was conducted at eight hospitals across New York State. All infants who did not bilaterally pass hearing screening before discharge were recalled for outpatient retesting. Inpatient screening and outpatient rescreening were done with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions and/or auditory brain stem response testing. Diagnostic testing was performed with age appropriate tests, auditory brain stem response and/or visual reinforcement audiometry. Infants diagnosed with permanent hearing loss were considered for hearing aids and early intervention. Ages of hearing loss identification, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in early intervention were investigated regarding nursery type, risk status, unilateral versus bilateral hearing loss, loss type, loss severity, and state regions.

RESULTS

The prevalence of infants diagnosed with permanent hearing loss was 2.0/1000 (85 of 43,311). Of the 85 infants with hearing loss, 61% were from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and 67% were at risk for hearing loss. Of the 36 infants fitted with hearing aids, 58% were from NICUs and 78% were at risk for hearing loss. The median age at identification and enrollment in early intervention was 3 mo. Median age at hearing aid fitting was 7.5 mo. Median ages at identification were less for infants from the well-baby nurseries (WBNs) than for the NICU infants and for infants with severe/profound than for infants with mild/moderate hearing loss, but were similar for not-at-risk and at-risk infants. Median ages at hearing aid fitting were less for well babies than for NICU infants, for not-at-risk infants than for at-risk infants, and for infants with severe/ profound hearing loss than for infants with mild/ moderate hearing loss. However, median ages at early intervention enrollment were similar for nursery types, risk status, and severity of hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Early ages of hearing loss identification, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in early intervention can be achieved for infants from NICUs and WBNs and for infants at risk and not at risk for hearing loss in a large multi-center universal newborn hearing screening program.