Examination of the communication practices between state newborn screening programs and the medical home.
BACKGROUND
As outlined in the Newborn Screening Task Force report published in August 2000, the newborn screening system is more than just testing, but also involves follow-up, diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation. As such, multiple professional and public partners need to be adequately involved in the system to help ensure success. In addition, newborn screening programs are state-based; therefore, policies and procedures vary from state to state. Historically, there has been little uniformity between state newborn screening programs.


OBJECTIVE
To examine the communication practices of state newborn screening programs in the United States, particularly in relation to the medical home.


METHODS
A facsimile survey of program staff in all US newborn screening programs. Survey data were collected in August 2000.


RESULTS
All 51 programs participated. States were questioned about whether or not they had a procedure to identify the infant's medical home before the child's birth. Twelve states (24%) indicated that there was a procedure in place, whereas 39 states (76%) indicated that either no procedure existed or that they were unsure. In contrast, all state programs (except 1) indicated they notified the primary care physician about abnormal results and the need for follow-up. In addition, state programs reported that primary care physicians have responsibilities within the newborn screening system, particularly related to communicating with parents about screen-positive results and coordinating the collection of a second specimen. Thirty states reported that they directly notified parents of screen-positive infants of results and the need for follow-up as well. In regard to informing parents about newborn screening, 45% of states indicated that primary care physicians had some responsibility in informing parents about newborn screening. Most often, parents were informed about newborn screening just before specimen collection, and the most commonly used techniques to educate parents were informational brochures and conversation. Thirty-five states reported that they engaged in long-term tracking of infants after diagnosis confirmation. Only about half of these states provided long-term tracking of all of the conditions included in their state's newborn screening test panel. Of these 35 states that engaged in long-term tracking, 25 reported that they requested patient information from the primary care physician and/or subspecialist about ongoing treatment and follow-up.


CONCLUSIONS
Newborn screening roles and responsibilities vary tremendously between states. Improvements in communication and better-defined protocols are needed, particularly between state newborn screening programs and the medical home. Many states identified the medical home as having significant responsibilities related to the short-term follow-up of screen-positive infants. Identification of the correct medical home before testing would help to reduce unnecessary time and frustration for state newborn screening programs, especially in the follow-up of infants that are difficult to locate. In addition, primary care physicians (ie, the medical home) need to have appropriate and ongoing involvement, including a mechanism to provide feedback to their state newborn screening program. This is particularly important given the adoption of tandem mass spectrometry by an increasing number of states, and the likely expansion of newborn screening in the future. Recommendations include the following: Primary care physicians should have appropriate and ongoing involvement in the newborn screening system and should be appropriately represented on state newborn screening advisory committees. States should develop protocols to identify the medical home before heelstick screening. States should work with families, primary care physicians, and prenatal health care professionals to develop well-defined systems for pretesting education of parents. All newborn screening results (both positive and negative) should be sent to the infant's medical home. If results are not received by the medical home, efforts should be made to obtain results. Medical homes and subspecialists should submit follow-up information on screen-positive infants and infants with confirmed diagnoses to the state newborn screening program, regardless of the existence of state requirements to do so, and efforts to build enhanced direct communication systems, linking state newborn screening programs to community-based medical homes, should continue.
Kim
Sunnah
S
Department of Community Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007-1098, USA.
Lloyd-Puryear
Michele A
MA
Tonniges
Thomas F
TF
D003142:Communication; D003153:Community Health Services / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends; D040381:Education, Public Health Professional / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007229:Infant Welfare / Q000639:trends*; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D015997:Neonatal Screening / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards / Q000639:trends*; D013222:State Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000639:trends; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014481:United States; D000078329:Workforce