AudiologyOnline Phone: 800-753-2160


Cognivue - Ear to Brain Connection - December 2020

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.



Industry Innovations Summit February 2022 | • Attend live webinars • Learn about new products • Earn up to 20 hours online | T

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.

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
Live WebinarTue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:00 pm EST
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.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children
Presented by Andrea Warner-Czyz, PhD, Donna L. Sorkin, MA
Live WebinarWed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:00 pm EST
Course: #37452Level: Intermediate1 Hour
This course will review guidelines for cochlear implant candidacy for pediatric patients. In addition, we will discuss specific considerations for working with pediatric patients who are deaf or hard of hearing and may benefit from cochlear implant technology. This course is presented by AudiologyOnline in partnership with ACIA.

Grand Rounds: Complex Clinical Cases, presented in partnership with The Ohio State University
Presented by Gail Whitelaw, PhD, Christina Roup, PhD, Jodi Baxter, AuD, Alicia Gonzalez, BS, Sam Mogan, BA, Sarah Ferguson, BS
Recorded Webinar
Course: #36698Level: Intermediate1.5 Hour
This course is presented by faculty and AuD students at The Ohio State University. Five challenging pediatric cases that incorporate current evidence and perspectives of patient care will be discussed. Each case provides “take-home” messages to incorporate into clinical practice.

Innovation in Hearing Healthcare, presented in partnership with the National Acoustic Laboratories
Presented by Brent Edwards, PhD, Vicky Zhang, PhD, Joaquin Tomas Valderrama-Valenzuela, PhD, Simon Alperstein, MSc BE, Paola Incerti, MAudiology, AAudA, Jorge Mejia, PhD, Nicky Chong-White, PhD
Recorded Webinar
Course: #37216Level: Intermediate4 Hours
Build your knowledge with this four-course series presented in partnership with the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL). A world leader in hearing research and innovation, NAL shares applied research outcomes that are practical to a wide range of expertise, from clinical appointments to technology innovation. Maximize your skills and incorporate evidence-based research in your practice with these short, high-impact webinars designed to improve hearing healthcare.