IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0152028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Newborn Hearing Screening in Well-Baby Nursery and NICU: A Study Applied to Reduce Referral Rate in NICU

Author

Listed:
  • Pei-Chun Li
  • Wei-I Chen
  • Chih-Ming Huang
  • Ching-Ju Liu
  • Hsiu-wen Chang
  • Hung-Ching Lin

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether newborn hearing screening in a well-baby nursery (WBN) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nursery: 1) meet three targeted, screening, referral, and diagnostic follow-up rates; 2) compare the average age of diagnosis for infants admitted to the WIN and NICU; and 3) determine prevalence of hearing loss in neonatal population; and 4) try to find a practical newborn hearing screening time algorithm to reduce refer rate in NICU Materials and Methods: It examined 15,624 newborns in the WBN (13,676) and NICU (1948) screened for congenital HL using AABR. The variables analyzed in it were the screening rate, referral rate, follow-up rate, diagnostic rate and diagnostic age, prevalence rate, degrees of congenital bilateral HL. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board (13MMHISO23). Results: The screening rates were 99.8% and 99.6% in the WBN and NICU groups, respectively, without significant difference. The referral rates were 0.7% and 2.8% in the WBN and NICU groups, with significant difference. Furthermore, the diagnostic follow-up rates were 76.7% and 89.1% in the WBN and NICU groups, without significant difference. The average initial diagnostic ages were 1.9 months and 3.8 months in the WBN and NICU groups, with significant difference. The prevalence of congenital bilateral hearing loss were 0.27% and 1.6% in the WBN and NICU groups, with significant difference. Conclusion: The screening, referral and follow-up rate in the WBN and NICU groups were equivalent to the quality indicators. For NICU group, screening and diagnostic follow up were performed later than those in WBN group; however the lower referral rate in our NICU group was successfully achieved in this study and can be applied clinically. The prevalence of congenital bilateral hearing loss was higher in the NICU group than in the WBN group.

Suggested Citation

  • Pei-Chun Li & Wei-I Chen & Chih-Ming Huang & Ching-Ju Liu & Hsiu-wen Chang & Hung-Ching Lin, 2016. "Comparison of Newborn Hearing Screening in Well-Baby Nursery and NICU: A Study Applied to Reduce Referral Rate in NICU," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152028
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152028
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152028&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0152028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.