Volunteer-based universal newborn hearing screening program

A H Messner1, M Price, K Kwast

  • 1Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, 725 Welch Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. anna.messner@medcenter.stanford.edu

Insights

A volunteer-led newborn hearing screening program effectively identifies infants with hearing loss, with 91% screened before discharge. While viable, this approach did not yield significant cost savings in the initial two years.

Area of Science:

  • Neonatal care
  • Audiology
  • Public health

Background:

  • Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) is crucial for early detection of hearing loss.
  • Identifying hearing loss in newborns, especially those without risk factors, is vital for timely intervention.
  • Volunteer-based programs offer a potential model for expanding UNHS reach.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the effectiveness and financial implications of a volunteer-driven universal newborn hearing screening program.
  • To determine the efficacy of automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) technology in a volunteer-based screening setting.
  • To analyze the costs associated with screening newborns in a well-baby nursery environment.

Main Methods:

  • Review of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford newborn hearing screening database.
  • Analysis of hearing screen results and associated costs for 5771 newborns.
  • Utilization of automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) by volunteers for initial screening.

Main Results:

  • Nine infants (0.16%) were identified with hearing loss; seven had no known risk factors.
  • Volunteers screened 91% of infants before hospital discharge, with an additional 4% screened as outpatients.
  • The volunteer-based program incurred a per-baby screening cost of $27.41.

Conclusions:

  • A volunteer-based hearing screening program is a feasible approach for well-baby nurseries.
  • This model successfully identifies infants with hearing loss, including those without risk factors.
  • Significant cost savings were not observed within the first two years of the program's implementation.
Abstract