The purpose of this paper is to revisit previous literature addressing universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), review current practices of UNHS, evaluate the factors relating to UNHS, and identify areas for improvement. The importance of identifying hearing loss before 3 months, and receiving intervention by 6 months of age, relates to children’s speech, language, academic, and social-emotional development. Not only does early diagnosis allow for optimal speech and language development, it also provides a longer period of time for families to obtain necessary information and receive support they may need (Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003). The ultimate goal of UNHS is to detect hearing loss early in order to treat hearing loss promptly, potentially
…show more content…
To further evaluate the referral rates and follow-up procedures, a university clinic determined whether an early intervention program was achieving the goal of diagnosis of hearing loss by 3 months, amplification by 1 month of diagnosis, and intervention services by 6 months of age, as outlined in the JCIH 2007 position statement (Krishnan, 2009; JCIH 2007). Results showed 17% of infants were older than the ideal diagnosis age of 3 months at the initial evaluation. Eighteen percent who were referred for a follow-up did not return; additionally, none of the infants with hearing loss received amplification within a month of diagnosis or early intervention by six months of age (Krishnan, 2009). The study found that the goal of early amplification and intervention services were not being achieved in most cases. Overall results of this study revealed several areas in the UNHS program in need of improvement. The study emphasized the need for data monitoring systems that are paired with service providers to improve the efficacy of early intervention programs. In a 2011 study, results showed states benefiting from data collection and tracking of infants who did not pass their hearing screening (Houston et al., 2011). However, the 2011 study also indicated the lack of well-qualified pediatric audiologists and early intervention …show more content…
Additional costs include parents’ time away from work, travel expenses to healthcare facilities, and parental stress. Years later, Keren, Helfand, Homer, McPhillips, and Lieu (2002) claimed the short-term cost-effectiveness of UNHS is similar to cost per case diagnosed of other UNHS programs. UNHS programs may improve by increasing the rate of follow-up after positive screening test results. Thus, if early identification results improve overall language development, lower educational and intervention costs have potential for long-term cost savings (Karen et al., 2002). In 2003, Baroch found UNHS programs to be cost-effective with low referral rates. Studies have shown there is a potential for long-term cost savings in UNHS
To further evaluate the referral rates and follow-up procedures, a university clinic determined whether an early intervention program was achieving the goal of diagnosis of hearing loss by 3 months, amplification by 1 month of diagnosis, and intervention services by 6 months of age, as outlined in the JCIH 2007 position statement (Krishnan, 2009; JCIH 2007). Results showed 17% of infants were older than the ideal diagnosis age of 3 months at the initial evaluation. Eighteen percent who were referred for a follow-up did not return; additionally, none of the infants with hearing loss received amplification within a month of diagnosis or early intervention by six months of age (Krishnan, 2009). The study found that the goal of early amplification and intervention services were not being achieved in most cases. Overall results of this study revealed several areas in the UNHS program in need of improvement. The study emphasized the need for data monitoring systems that are paired with service providers to improve the efficacy of early intervention programs. In a 2011 study, results showed states benefiting from data collection and tracking of infants who did not pass their hearing screening (Houston et al., 2011). However, the 2011 study also indicated the lack of well-qualified pediatric audiologists and early intervention …show more content…
Additional costs include parents’ time away from work, travel expenses to healthcare facilities, and parental stress. Years later, Keren, Helfand, Homer, McPhillips, and Lieu (2002) claimed the short-term cost-effectiveness of UNHS is similar to cost per case diagnosed of other UNHS programs. UNHS programs may improve by increasing the rate of follow-up after positive screening test results. Thus, if early identification results improve overall language development, lower educational and intervention costs have potential for long-term cost savings (Karen et al., 2002). In 2003, Baroch found UNHS programs to be cost-effective with low referral rates. Studies have shown there is a potential for long-term cost savings in UNHS