Consumer Satisfaction with Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening in a Midwifery-Led Maternity Setting
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Theme 1: Parents Were Satisfied with the Screening Procedure
3.2. Theme 2: The Quality of Available Information Was Good, But Not All Received Sufficient Information
3.3. Theme 3: Timing Influenced the Retention of Information
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Plana, M.N.; Zamora, J.; Suresh, G.; Fernandez-Pineda, L.; Thangaratinam, S.; Ewer, A.K. Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 3, CD011912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de-Wahl Granelli, A.; Meberg, A.; Ojala, T.; Steensberg, J.; Oskarsson, G.; Mellander, M. Nordic pulse oximetry screening—Implementation status and proposal for uniform guidelines. Acta Paediatr. 2014, 103, 1136–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhola, K.; Kluckow, M.; Evans, N. Post-implementation review of pulse oximetry screening of well newborns in an Australian tertiary maternity hospital. J. Paediatr. Child Health 2014, 50, 920–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ewer, A.K.; Middleton, L.J.; Furmston, A.T.; Bhoyar, A.; Daniels, J.P.; Thangaratinam, S.; Deeks, J.J.; Khan, K.S. Pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects in newborn infants (PulseOx): A test accuracy study. Lancet 2011, 378, 785–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, L.F.; Van Naarden Braun, K.; Knapp, M.M.; Anderson, T.M.; Koppel, R.I.; Hirsch, D.; Beres, L.M.; Sweatlock, J.; Olney, R.S.; Glidewell, J.; et al. Results from the New Jersey statewide critical congenital heart defects screening program. Pediatrics 2013, 132, e314–e323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministry of Health. New Zealand Health Strategy: Future Direction. Available online: https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/new-zealand-health-strategy-2016 (accessed on 22 September 2018).
- National Health Committee. Screening to Improve Health in New Zealand. Available online: https://www.nsu.govt.nz/publications/screening-improve-health-new-zealand-criteria-assess-screening-programme (accessed on 25 September 2018).
- Cartwright, S. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women’s Hospital and into Other Related Matters. Available online: http://www.moh.govt.nz/notebook/nbbooks.nsf/0/64D0EE19BA628E4FCC256E450001CC21?OpenDocument (accessed on 13 August 2018).
- Starship Clinical Guidelines. Pulse Oximetry Screening in the Newborn. Available online: https://www.starship.org.nz/for-health-professionals/starship-clinical-guidelines/p/pulse-oximetry-screening-in-the-newborn/ (accessed on 4 September 2018).
- Bailey, D.B., Jr.; Skinner, D.; Davis, A.M.; Whitmarsh, I.; Powell, C. Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: Fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues. Pediatrics 2008, 121, e693–e704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moody, L.; Choudhry, K. Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening. Health Expect 2013, 16, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kluckow, M. Barriers to the Implementation of Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening: A Different Perspective. Int. J. Neonatal Screen. 2018, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manson, N.C. Why do patients want information if not to take part in decision making? J. Med. Ethics 2010, 36, 834–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meberg, A. Newborn pulse oximetry screening is not just for heart defects. Acta Paediatr. 2015, 104, 856–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abouk, R.; Grosse, S.D.; Ailes, E.C.; Oster, M.E. Association of US State Implementation of Newborn Screening Policies for Critical Congenital Heart Disease With Early Infant Cardiac Deaths. JAMA 2017, 318, 2111–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gurian, E.A.; Kinnamon, D.D.; Henry, J.J.; Waisbren, S.E. Expanded newborn screening for biochemical disorders: The effect of a false-positive result. Pediatrics 2006, 117, 1915–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hewlett, J.; Waisbren, S.E. A review of the psychosocial effects of false-positive results on parents and current communication practices in newborn screening. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis. 2006, 29, 677–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kai, J.; Ulph, F.; Cullinan, T.; Qureshi, N. Communication of carrier status information following universal newborn screening for sickle cell disorders and cystic fibrosis: Qualitative study of experience and practice. Health Technol. Assess. 2009, 13, 1–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clemens, C.J.; Davis, S.A.; Bailey, A.R. The false-positive in universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics 2000, 106, E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vernooij-van Langen, A.; van der Pal, S.; Reijntjens, A.; Loeber, J.; Dompeling, E.; Dankert-Roelse, J. Parental knowledge reduces long term anxiety induced by false-positive test results after newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Mol. Genet. Metab. Rep. 2014, 1, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thangaratinam, S.; Brown, K.; Zamora, J.; Khan, K.S.; Ewer, A.K. Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects in asymptomatic newborn babies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012, 379, 2459–2464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayant, K.; Rao, R.S.; Nene, B.M.; Dale, P.S. Improved stage at diagnosis of cervical cancer with increased cancer awareness in a rural Indian population. Int. J. Cancer 1995, 63, 161–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arevian, M.; Noureddine, S.; Kabakian-Khasholian, T. Raising awareness and providing free screening improves cervical cancer screening among economically disadvantaged Lebanese/Armenian women. J. Transcult. Nurs. 2006, 17, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, C.L.; Davis, T.C.; Humiston, S.G.; Bocchini, J.A., Jr.; Bass, P.F., 3rd; Bocchini, A.; Kennen, E.M.; White, K.; Forsman, I. Infant hearing screening: Stakeholder recommendations for parent-centered communication. Pediatrics 2006, 117, S341–S354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholls, S.G.; Southern, K.W. Parental decision-making and acceptance of newborn bloodspot screening: An exploratory study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Damiani, G.; Federico, B.; Basso, D.; Ronconi, A.; Bianchi, C.B.; Anzellotti, G.M.; Nasi, G.; Sassi, F.; Ricciardi, W. Socioeconomic disparities in the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in Italy: A cross sectional study. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Median (Range) | Screening Study, n (%) | Survey, n (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
16,644 (61) | 657 (4) | ||
Age (years) | |||
15–24 25–34 35–44 | 29 (15–44) | n/a | 131 (20) 379 (58) 147 (22) |
Ethnicity | |||
European Māori Pacific Peoples Other | 5406 (33) 3040 (18) 2206 (13) 5992 (36) | 246 (37) 148 (23) 81 (12) 182 (28) | |
Number of children | |||
One to three Four to six Seven to nine | 2 (1–9) | n/a | 600 (91) 52 (8) 5 (1) |
Highest level of educational attainment | |||
Tertiary qualification Trade certificate School qualification | n/a | 382 (58) 65 (10) 210 (32) | |
Place of birth | |||
Tertiary Hospital Secondary Hospital Primary Birthing Unit Home | 13,568 (82) 1739 (10) 989 (6) 26 (2) | 407 (62) 150 (23) 91 (14) 9 (1) |
Theme | Example Quotes |
---|---|
(1) Satisfaction with screening procedure | “No issues. Simple, fast. No complications or disruptions to me or baby.” “Amazing technology and such a simple test to administer. Great to have this testing available for all babies. Much better to identify potential issues early.” “I was very satisfied with having the screening test done and happy with the results reassuring me my baby is healthy. Thank you.” “Everything has been performed really well. Completely satisfied. Well done guys.” “I would like to thank my midwife because she did the test. It was very important for my baby.”“Everyone should do this. Make it mandatory.” “This is a vital screen—I was very glad to have it offered.” “Test was easy.” |
(2) Quality of information was good, but not always sufficient | “The brochure had enough information. I think if video offered I would have said no thanks.” “Test was easy and I was well informed of why the screening was being done.” “Glad you discussed the need/reason for the test.” “We were given a brochure, but relied mostly on verbal information provided about the test.” “I was well informed of why the screening was being done.” “I am very satisfied because she provided all the important information that is very necessary for all parents.”“Don’t recall receiving any information.” “Need to explain more about the test to parents.” “Agree with doing the test, but didn’t get feedback.” “Lack of communication regarding results.” “Borderline results—not very well explained by nurse.” “Didn’t see a video or brochure.” |
(3) Timing influenced the retention of information | “I don’t remember much as it was late and I was out of it. Partner explained to me we had it done.” “Got given brochure—did not read due to being tired. Was good to have the midwife explain instead.” “Would have been useful to receive the parent information in advance.” “The test was undertaken during our first night, so my partner and I struggled to take it all in. I am sure it was explained well at the time—just difficult to recall.” “Was a bit out of it when this test was performed, so can’t remember much.” “No memory of this.” “I don’t remember.” “We can’t recall the test very well, but have a faint recollection of looking at the brochure.” |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cloete, E.; Gentles, T.L.; Lutter, R.A.; Richards, K.; Ward, K.; Bloomfield, F.H. Consumer Satisfaction with Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening in a Midwifery-Led Maternity Setting. Int. J. Neonatal Screen. 2018, 4, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns4040038
Cloete E, Gentles TL, Lutter RA, Richards K, Ward K, Bloomfield FH. Consumer Satisfaction with Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening in a Midwifery-Led Maternity Setting. International Journal of Neonatal Screening. 2018; 4(4):38. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns4040038
Chicago/Turabian StyleCloete, Elza, Thomas L. Gentles, Robert A. Lutter, Kelly Richards, Kim Ward, and Frank H. Bloomfield. 2018. "Consumer Satisfaction with Newborn Pulse Oximetry Screening in a Midwifery-Led Maternity Setting" International Journal of Neonatal Screening 4, no. 4: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns4040038