Literature DB >> 35244731

Providers' Attitudes to Proposed Changes in the Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening Algorithm.

Julia Claire Walters1, Xiao Zhang2, John Smith Hokanson3.   

Abstract

Screening for critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) in newborns based on a 2009 Swedish study has become the standard of care despite the complexity of the algorithm. A simplified algorithm which might increase the false-positive rate was proposed in 2020 but not formally endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. We sought to determine how the current protocol and the proposed changes are perceived by clinicians. We performed an anonymous survey of professionals involved in the care of newborns regarding their perception of the current and proposed CCHD screening algorithms. 335 responses were evaluated. Less than 2% of respondents were dissatisfied with the existing screening algorithm or felt it was difficult to perform. 47% endorsed and 12% opposed the adoption of the proposed modifications with those most familiar with the proposed changes more likely to endorse them. Although many providers would accept a higher false-positive rate in CCHD screening, those who would have to transfer a baby from the birth site for assessment after a failed CCHD screening were less tolerant of an increased false-positive rate. Although the existing CCHD screening mechanisms appear to be very well received, the proposed changes to the CCHD algorithm were viewed positively by many respondents. Changes in this algorithm would likely be better tolerated in those setting where the consequences of a failed CCHD screening are more easily addressed.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Congenital heart disease; Echocardiography; Newborn screening; Pulse oximetry; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35244731     DOI: 10.1007/s00246-022-02858-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol        ISSN: 0172-0643            Impact factor:   1.838


  3 in total

1.  The Childhood Vaccination Schedule and the Lack of Association With Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Jason M Glanz; Christina L Clarke; Matthew F Daley; Jo Ann Shoup; Simon J Hambidge; Joshua T B Williams; Holly C Groom; Elyse O Kharbanda; Nicola P Klein; Lisa A Jackson; Bruno J Lewin; David L McClure; Stanley Xu; Frank DeStefano
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 9.703

2.  Aerosolized Calfactant for Newborns With Respiratory Distress: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  James J Cummings; Erick Gerday; Stephen Minton; Anup Katheria; George Albert; Jaime Flores-Torres; Mobolaji Famuyide; Andrea Lampland; Scott Guthrie; Devon Kuehn; Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp; Prem Fort; Elie G Abu Jawdeh; Rita M Ryan; Gregory C Martin; Jonathan R Swanson; Neil Mulrooney; Fabien Eyal; Dale Gerstmann; Praveen Kumar; Greg E Wilding; Edmund A Egan
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 7.124

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.