Literature DB >> 19482762

Lowering developmental screening thresholds and raising quality improvement for preterm children.

Kevin Marks1, Hollie Hix-Small, Kathy Clark, Judy Newman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine: 1) if preterm children were referred, identified and received early intervention (EI)/ early childhood special education (ECSE) services at rates equivalent to term children after implementation of a universal, periodic Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) surveillance and screening system; 2) if pediatricians sufficiently lowered their screening thresholds with preterm children;and 3) if quality improvement opportunities exist. PATIENT AND METHODS: Secondary analysis was performed on 64 lower-risk, mostly late-preterm and 1363 term children who originally presented to their 12- or 24-month well- visits. Higher-risk preemies already involved with an EI agency/ identified with a delay were excluded. Board-certified pediatricians (N=18), and nurse practitioners (N = 2), blind to the ASQ results, were secondary participants. Differences between preterm and term developmental agency referrals were examined comparing Pediatric Developmental Impression to the ASQ under natural clinic conditions using a combined in-office or mail-back data collection protocol. Medical record and county EI/ECSE follow-up outcomes were conducted at 36 to 60 months.
RESULTS: At 12 and 24 months, preterm (versus term) referral rates were 9.5%(versus 5.6%) with Pediatric Developmental Impression and 26.2% (versus 8.1%) with the ASQ. By 36 to 60 months, 37.5% of preterm (20.8% term) children were referred to EI/ECSE; of which, 50.0% of preterm (42.4% term) children were eligible for services, 54.2%of preterm children were identified with a developmental-behavioral disorder and 29.2% of preterm (20.8% term) children did not follow-up. For ASQ-only preterm referrals,55.6% were subsequently diagnosed with a developmental delay and/or disorder.Preterm children were 2 times more likely to be eligible than term children [corrected].
CONCLUSIONS: Combined referral, quality improvement and outcome data suggests that clinicians should lower their threshold for administering a psychometrically sound developmental screen when providing surveillance for ex-preemies. Quality improvement opportunities exist with diligent developmental surveillance and a more collaborative, standardized, reliable and interpersonal referral process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19482762     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-2051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  7 in total

1.  Narrowing Care Gaps for Early Language Delay: A Quality Improvement Study.

Authors:  Courtney M Brown; Andrew F Beck; Wendy Steuerwald; Elizabeth Alexander; Zeina M Samaan; Robert S Kahn; Mona Mansour
Journal:  Clin Pediatr (Phila)       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 1.168

2.  A comparison of the korean-ages and stages questionnaires and denver developmental delay screening test.

Authors:  Hyo-Yun Ga; Jeong Yi Kwon
Journal:  Ann Rehabil Med       Date:  2011-06-30

3.  Better together: Developmental screening and monitoring best identify children who need early intervention.

Authors:  Brian Barger; Catherine Rice; Rebecca Wolf; Andrew Roach
Journal:  Disabil Health J       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 2.554

4.  Parent-completed developmental screening in premature children: a valid tool for follow-up programs.

Authors:  Cyril Flamant; Bernard Branger; Sylvie Nguyen The Tich; Elise de la Rochebrochard; Christophe Savagner; Isabelle Berlie; Jean-Christophe Rozé
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Examination of the cut-off scores determined by the Ages and Stages Questionnaire in a population-based sample of 6 month-old Norwegian infants.

Authors:  Astrid Alvik; Berit Grøholt
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 2.125

Review 6.  Should we consider alternatives to universal well-child behavioral-developmental screening?

Authors:  Jacob Urkin; Yair Bar-David; Basil Porter
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 3.418

7.  Using the ages and stages questionnaire in the general population as a measure for identifying children not at risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder.

Authors:  Ramesh Lamsal; Daniel J Dutton; Jennifer D Zwicker
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 2.125

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.