View
216
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Organisation and results of neonatal hearing screening in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation
Centre d’Epidémiologie Périnatale CEpiP asbl
ROYAL BELGIAN SOCIETY FOR EAR, NOSE AND THROAT, HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
ANNUAL REPORT: NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING
Bénédicte VosUNHS Coordinator 16 November 2013
2
Context
• Permanent childhood hearing loss:– Public health concern– Prevalence (significant bilateral HL)*
• Well-baby nursery population: 1-3‰ • NICU population: 2-4%
– Consequences• Cognition, socio-emotional development → appropriate intervention before 6 months of age
– International recommendations → Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS)
*American Academy of Pediatrics, 1999; ANAES, 1999
3
Context
• Wallonia-Brussels Federation:– Before 2006:
No coordinated UNHS– November 2006:
Protocol released (organisation of the program)Maternity hospitals in Brussels & WalloniaParticipation: voluntary basis
Objective: To present the organisation and results of the UNHS program (FWB) and its evolution since implementation (2007-2011)
4
Protocol
Organisation: only guidelines Hospitals: free to design its own approach
Screening Diagnosis
$ in 2011* AOAE: automated otoacoustic emissions
5
Organisation
Organisation: only guidelines Hospitals: free to design its own approach
Different « patterns »: - Screeners:
from maternity ward or ENT ward (nurses, midwives, audiologists,…)
- Days: from 2 to 7 days a week
« Screeners » an « days » are related 7/7 days: do not decrease untested or
lost to follow up children
6
Risk factors in the UNHS-FWB
Risk factors related tothe prenatal period the peri- and postnatal period
- Family history of hereditary HL- Consanguinity (1st degree)- In-utero infection :
• cytomegalovirus• toxoplasmosis• herpes• rubella• syphilis
- Poisoning (alcohol, drugs) by the mother during pregnancy
- Apgar score of 0-6 at 5 minutes- Gestational age < 36 weeks and/or low
birth weight (< 1500 gr.)- NICU admission ≥ 5 days- Exposure to ototoxic medications - Hyperbilirubinaemia at level requiring
exchange transfusion- Assisted ventilation lasting ≥24 hours - Head or neck anomalies and by
extension each syndrome known to include a HL- Neurological or endocrine disease
Data collection« Paper »:Collected by 3 neonatal screening c.- AOAE:
backside of the PKU form- ABR (or AOAE after discharge):
specific forms« Computer »:Coordinating agencyInternet connection
7
8
Recall system
• Untested - abnormal results → recalled for outpatient testing
– « paper » transmission:• Hospitals contact the parents, 3 times
– « computer » transmission• Coordinating agency sends 2 letters to the parents (day 15 & 30);
1 letter to the hospital (day 45)
9
Funding
• Screening– FWB → hospital: 5 €/child– Parents → hospital: ≤10 €/child;
Reimbursed by most social security organisations
• Diagnosis: Federal Sickness Fund
• Data collection: FWB
• Devices & users training: Hospitals
10
Data analysis
• Inclusion criterion:– Implementation of the UNHS program in the hospital– Dates of birth: 1/1/2007 – 31/12/2011
• Comparison of the results– By year of birth
(≠ date of the test)
11
Participation to the program
• Hospitals: – 1/1/2007: 23 hospitals– during 2007: +19– end of 2011: 43 → all hospitals of the FWB,
except 3
• Newborns (participating hospitals):
2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
100002000030000400005000060000
2007-2011:239722 newborns
12
Eligible population
2007 2008 2009 2010 20110.00.51.01.52.02.53.0
"Outside"Refusal
Percentage >58% → Kind & Gezin
20072008
20092010
20110
100002000030000400005000060000
≥1 risk fact. No risk fact.
UNHS Population
2007-2008: +22%
2009-2011: stabilisation
13
Risk factors for HL
2007 2008 2009 2010 20110.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
≥1 risk factor(s)
Percentage Proportion of RF:
2007-2011: globally, 6.9%doubled between 2007-
2011
- ↗ data quality (communication of the information)
- Effect of the training (pediatricians)?
Literature: 8-10%
14
2007 2008 2009 2010 201140.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
Coverage test 1
Years
Perc
enta
ge
1st screening test coverage:< 90% < 95%decrease in 2011: due to an absence of transmission of the results (≠ tests not performed)
Recommandation:> 95 %
Untested
« Screening » groupCoverage rate: 1st test
15
« Screening » group‘Pass’ results: 2nd test
2007 2008 2009 2010 201140.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
Pass results test1
Years
Perc
enta
ge
Results of the 1st screening test:85% 88%
Learning curve?
2nd test needed
16
« Screening » groupCoverage rate & ‘pass’ results : 2nd test
2007 2008 2009 2010 201140.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
Coverage test 2Pass results test2
Years
Perc
enta
ge
Referred for audiological assessment:2.4%
17
« Screening » groupCoverage rate: follow up
2007 2008 2009 2010 201140.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
Coverage follow up
Years
Perc
enta
ge
Coverage of the follow up (newborns referred to ENT):45% 70%
Lack in data transmission? (= lost to documentation)
Recommendation: >95%
18
Newborns with ≥1 RF
2007 2008 2009 2010 20110.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Untested
Perc
enta
ge
2007-2009: improvement
2010-2011: no systematic data transmission?
19
Hearing status
Hearing status, by year of birth (2007-2011) and by presence or not of risk factor(s)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 201175.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
Hearing lossUntestedLost to follow upNormal hearing
Perc
enta
ge
Without risk factor ≥ 1 risk factor(s)
Prevalence HL (2007-2011): 26.33‰
Prevalence HL (2007-2011): 1.46‰
20
Hearing impairments
(n=233397)Unilateral &
BilateralUnilateral Bilateral
n ‰ n ‰ n ‰ PerceptiveAuditory neuropathyConductive (temporary)Conductive (permanent)Conductive (unspecified)Hearing loss - Unspecified
743124
3197
26171222
3.180.530.010.840.110.730.95
35741
0105
14101
96
1.530.180.000.450.060.430.41
38683
3921270
126
1.650.360.010.390.050.300.54
Data quality:has to be improved
21
Conclusion
• Comparison to other programs– Coverage rates– Lost to follow up– Prevalence of HL
• Data quality
• Data from rehabilitation services: – Missing → global evaluation of the program is impossible
Thank you for your attention
Bénédicte Vos - UNHS coordinator Centre de référence pour le Programme de dépistage néonatal de la surdité Centre d’Epidémiologie Périnatale CEpiP asbl
22
This program is funded by the Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles
and supported by a scientific working group composed by Drs N. Deggouj, P. Deltenre, L. Demanez, A. Doyen, P. Eymael, A-L. Mansbach, N. Melice
Scientific promoteur: Dr A. Leveque
24
UNHS-FWB has existed for 5 years…
Main difficulties in the implementation: beginning
Remaining difficulties: • Early discharge of the infant• Increase of paperwork workload• Lack of identification of high risk newborns • Lack of transmission of the results• Computer data transmission:
– Technical difficulties, but better transmission of the results
Recommended