Presentation on theme: "How Accurate are Newborn Hearing Screening Rates?"— Presentation transcript:
1 How Accurate are Newborn Hearing Screening Rates? Marcus Gaffney, MPHDenise Green, MPHAtlanta, GA
2 CDC DisclaimerThe findings and conclusions in this presentation have not been formally disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.
3 ObjectiveEvaluate the accuracy of state reported newborn hearing screening rates.Identify strategies to help states calculate more accurate rates of hearing screening
4 Methods Analyzed state data for years 2000 – 2004 Estimated screening dataSource: Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies’ (DSHPSHWA)States reported the number of children born and screened in their state by year
5 Methods Recalculated screening rates using occurrence birth data Provided by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)Screening rates based on NCHS occurrence data were compared to the rates calculated using the state reported birth data
6 Calculation of Hearing Screening Rates Original Rate (state birth data)# Screened# State reported birthsNCHS Rate# NCHS occurrence births
8 FindingsThe difference in national screening rates calculated using the # of births reported by states and the NCHS birth data was relatively small.The screening rates based on the state reported birth data were on average 1.3% higher than the NCHS derived ratesLarger variations in screening rates were observed among some individual states
9 Differences in State Screening Rates of 4% or More
13 States Exceeding the JCIH Benchmark Based on NCHS Data
14 Summary of JCIH 95% Screening Benchmark Use of NCHS occurrence birth data changes the number of states reaching the JCIH 95% screening benchmarkThe change in percent of states dropping below 95% ranged from 2 – 12%A very small number of states benefited from the NCHS birth data by having recalculated rates at or above the JCIH 95% benchmark
15 DiscussionThe difference in national hearing screening rates using the NCHS data is very smallThe large variation in screening rates for some individual states may be due to:Lack of data integration with vital recordsStates only reporting births that are required to be screened and not all births by state of occurrence
16 ConclusionsStates should consider integrating EHDI data systems with other appropriate systemsIntegration with Vital Records is especially important. This may allow more accurate birth data to be reported.NCHS derived screening rates indicates that fewer states are reaching the JCIH 95% screening benchmark than previously estimatedIn order to assess the true progress of UNHS states need to report accurate and verifiable data
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.