The Effect of Unsatisfactory Specimens on Newborn Screening Lisa Kalman, PhD Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program, CDC.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EVAULATION OF THE NSCRG SCHOOL SAMPLE Donsig Jang and Xiaojing Lin Third International Conference on Establishment Surveys Montreal, Canada, June 21, 2007.
Advertisements

Quality Assurance Documentation Procedures and Records Stacy M. Howard, MT(ASCP)
Survey Methodology Nonresponse EPID 626 Lecture 6.
The Impact of Gynecologic Pathology Diagnostic Errors on Patient Care Dana Marie Grzybicki MD, PhD Colleen M. Vrbin, BA Danielle Pirain, BS Stephen S.
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Women’s Health during Pregnancy Findings from the Rhode Island PRAMS Hanna Kim, Samara Viner-Brown, Rachel.
Risk factors and true outcomes of children lost to follow-up from antiretroviral therapy in Lilongwe, Malawi C. Ardura Gracia, H. Tweya, C Feldacker, S.
EDRN’s Validation Study Information Management System Developed for EDRN by the DMCC Cancer Biomarkers Group Division of Cancer Prevention Jet Propulsion.
1 1 Chapter 1 Specimen Management Professor A. S. Alhomida Disclaimer The texts, tables and images contained in this course presentation (BCH 376) are.
Melissa Ewerth Graduate Adapted Physical Education, WCU.
Pre-service Performance Standard Selection Process (c) At least 10 percent of the total number of enrollment opportunities in each grantee.
Michigan Newborn Screening & Live Births Records Linkage and Follow-Up of Potentially Un-Screened Infants Steven J. Korzeniewski, MA, MSc, Maternal & Child.
Michigan Birth Defects Registry Overview and Status.
Manish Chaudhary BPH, MPH
Problems in Birth Registration What is the National Standard? Why is the data so important? Joanne M. Wesley Office of the State Registrar.
California’s Nursing Workforce: New Research Joanne Spetz, Ph.D. University of California, San Francisco February 7, 2012.
Tandem Mass Spectrometry Newborn Screening Quality Assurance and Control Instrument and Method Validation Gary Hoffman Wisconsin Newborn Screening Laboratory.
Created by CCTC HIPAA: Notice of Privacy Practices Policy in the Administrative Guide.
CHAA Examination Preparation
Improving Data Quality and Quality Assurance in Newborn Screening by Including the Bloodspot Screening Collection Device Serial Number on Birth Certificates.
Parental Satisfaction and Anxiety Following Newborn Hearing Screening Referrals in Utah Linda D. Goetze, Catherine C. Groseclose, Scott Grosse, Karl R.
ABSTRACT METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSION Background: Georgia rates the quality of early childcare learning centers using a tiered quality improvement system.
Patterns in Child Outcomes Summary Data: Cornelia Taylor, Lauren Barton, Donna Spiker September 19-21, 2011 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes.
TM Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Using Historical Records to Reconstruct Early Life SES Exposures in Decedents: Preliminary Findings from a Pilot Study Kathryn Rose and J. Stephen Perhac.
Paper Presented at the Standing Conference for African National and University Libraries in East, Central and Southern Africa (SCANUL – ECS), 1st and 2nd.
This teaching material has been made freely available by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust (Kilifi, Kenya). You can freely download, adapt, and distribute this.
Session 3: Assessment & Evaluation Lisa Jacques-Carroll, MSW NCIRD, CDC.
Specific Aim 1: Determine the impact of psychiatric disorders on the hospital length of stay (LOS) in pediatric patients diagnosed with SCD admitted for.
Evaluation of routine data sources for ascertainment of hypospadias cases Congenital Anomaly Register for Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire (CAROBB)
Newborn Screening in Wisconsin Jill Paradowski RN, MS Newborn Screening Coordinator Southeast region of Wisconsin.
Auditing: The Art and Science of Assurance Engagements
Copyright © 2007 Pearson Education Canada 1 Chapter 14: Completing the Tests in the Sales and Collection Cycle: Accounts Receivable.
GC Outbreak in Philadelphia Greta Anschuetz, MPH Philadelphia Department of Public Health
TEMPLATE DESIGN © Evaluation of the antenatal care and obstetric outcome of obese pregnant women and those with a healthy.
GOVERNOR’S EARLY CHILDHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL (ECAC) September 9, 2014.
Variation Among Immunoreactive Trypsinogen Concentrations, Michigan Newborn Screening, 10/2007-4/2008 Steven J. Korzeniewski, MA, MSc, Maternal & Child.
National Picture – Child Outcomes for Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education Kathleen Hebbeler Abby Winer Cornelia Taylor August 26, 2014.
FGM – THE ENHANCED DATASET DR EMMA TUKMACHI LEAD GP FOR SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN IN TOWER HAMLETS.
Descriptive Research Study Investigation of Positive and Negative Affect of UniJos PhD Students toward their PhD Research Project Dr. K. A. Korb University.
Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching (SELT) Survey.
Data dissemination meeting February 28, 2007 ICAP New York.
BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF CHLAMYDIA REINFECTION IN REGION VIII FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS FOR Hamby, Y, JSI Research & Training Institute Donovan,
Survey on Electronic Data Collection and Newborn Screening System Information Needs Assessment May 13, 2010 Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in.
Quality control & Statistics. Definition: it is the science of gathering, analyzing, interpreting and representing data. Example: introduction a new test.
EVALUATING AN EHDI SYSTEM: PARENT SURVEY PROJECT Vickie Thomson, MA State EHDI Coordinator Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Janet DesGeorges.
Department of Medical Assistance Services
Grade Point Average, among working and non-working students Group 4 ●Bre Patroske ●Marcello Gill ●Nga Wargin.
Module Three: Identifying your Patient in SIS. Introduction – Search for 1 st T Specimen The Search for 1 st T Specimen screen is used to access your.
Using State Data to Assess the Influence of Child Safety Campaigns Challenges Faced When Analyzing State Data Marc Starnes National Center for Statistics.
Module 9 Recording and reporting culture results Exercise 1.
Module Five: Viewing Results in SIS. Introduction – Viewing Results Accurately communicating case interpretation to patients is one of the most important.
Scientific Method A blueprint for experiment success.
Independence Plan Update February 26, © 2009 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care2 Key Points  Independence Plan introduced in 2005 –Tiered copayment product.
EPI 5344: Survival Analysis in Epidemiology Week 6 Dr. N. Birkett, School of Epidemiology, Public Health & Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa 03/2016.
Delayed Childbearing: Effect of Maternal Age at 1 st Childbirth on Pregnancy Outcome and Postpartum Incontinence H Li, P Osterweil, M Mori and JM Guise.
The Rise of Medical and Religious Exemptions to Vaccination in Texas National Immunization Conference May 12, 2004 Julie Townsend Monica Gamez.
Baseline Assessment of Nurses’ Experiences and Attitudes regarding Expanded HIV Testing in the Emergency Department at Albany Medical Center November 2014.
ASCO’s Quality Training Program Project Title: Improving oral chemotherapy fulfillment processes and implementation of a pharmacist- managed oral chemotherapy.
Introduction: “Please write down everything that comes into your head when you hear the words ‘DNA risk tests’” Colorectal cancer Type 1 diabetes Information.
Sample size calculation Ahmed Hassouna, MD
Quality of Electronic Emergency Department Data: How Good Are They?
Traffic Records Forum July 2004
Diana Bartlett Immunization Registry Support Branch
EDRN’s Validation Study Information Management System
A qualitative assessment of factors impacting adoption and implementation of USPSTF age-based hepatitis C virus screening recommendations Amy B. Jessop,
Reasoning in Psychology Using Statistics
Quality Assurance Documentation
So far We have been doing independent samples designs The observations in one group were not linked to the observations in the other group.
Chapter 4: Reporting and Submitting VISA/VRSA in Texas
Presentation transcript:

The Effect of Unsatisfactory Specimens on Newborn Screening Lisa Kalman, PhD Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program, CDC

How do unsat rates, criteria and practices differ between states? ?

National Unsat Survey Data on state unsat rates was collected from the National Newborn Screening Reports. The average unsat rate for each state was calculated from the available data. Data on state unsat practices (2001) was collected by and phone survey.

Why Do States Have Different Unsat Rates? ?

Do states that do not test unsats have a lower unsat rate? Idea – Perhaps hospitals will collect better specimens if they know that unsats will not be tested…

Data from 49 of 51 programs TX tests one class of unsats

States That…. Reject Unsats Test Unsats Mean 1.7% Unsats 2.3% Unsats (S.D=1.3) (S.D. = 2.8) Median 1.2% Unsats 1.3% Unsats There is not a significant difference in unsat rates between states that test or do not test (reject) unsat specimens.

Does the number of unsat critera affect the state unsat rate? Perhaps states with more unsat criteria have higher unsat rates?

Unsat Criteria 48 of 51 programs reported their unsat criteria The number of unsat criteria per state varied from 6 to 20. The median was 9. Most states adopt some or all of the 8 Schleicher and Schuell criteria. States also list additional criteria We found that the number of unsat criteria is apparently not related to the state unsat rate.

Summary of Unsat Rate Variation Study We were unable to identify reasons for the variation in state unsat rates.

Do unsats delay newborn screening result reporting ? Examine effect of unsats in two states with different… % Unsats # of Births/yr Screening schemes (1 vs 2 required specimens) Follow-up procedures

The effect of unsatisfactory specimens on newborn screening in two states Data from unsat specimens and satisfactory specimens of matched controls were collected from 2001 newborn screening records in two states State 1 requires 1 specimen/baby, high # births/yr, high % unsats State 2 requires a second screen after day 7, low # births/yr, low % unsats

Data collected or calculated from unsats and age/weight/date matched controls included… Unsat type (for unsat specimens) Age at collection Birth weight Mailing times Date of receipt at lab Time between specimens Age when result from first satisfactory specimen is available

Number of specimens analyzed….. State 1: n = 1505 unsats/matched controls (representing 5 weeks of 2001) State 2: n = 359 unsats/matched controls (representing most of 2001) Some unsats were excluded from analysis due to difficulties with control matching

State 1 - One required specimen - Median number of days Birth Collection of specimen Specimen arrives at lab Test results released Satisfactory First Specimen 6 days 13 days Birth Collection of specimen Unsat Collection of repeat specimen Satisfactory Specimen arrives at lab Unsat reported Specimen arrives at lab Test results released Unsatisfactory First Specimen 7 days12 days 7 days 29 days

State 1 – Ages when results from a satisfactory specimen are available

State % of patients with unsats eventually got a satisfactory repeat specimen 34% of patients with unsats were not documented to have a satisfactory repeat specimen Of the 34% with no satisfactory repeat: 59% had no repeat specimen 41% had only unsat repeats

State 2 - Two Required Specimens - Median number of days Birth Collection of first specimen Satisfactory Collection of second specimen Satisfactory Specimen arrives at lab Test results released Satisfactory Specimens Test results released 3 days 9 days 7 days 20 days Birth Collection of first specimen Unsat Collection of second specimen Satisfactory Specimen arrives at lab Test results released Unsatisfactory 1 st Specimen = 62% of total unsats Unsat reported 3 days 4 days 8 days 24 days

State 2 - Two Required Specimens - Median number of days Satisfactory Specimens Birth Collection of first specimen Satisfactory Collection of second specimen Satisfactory Specimen arrives at lab Test results released 3 days 9 days 7 days 20 days Unsatisfactory 2 nd Specimen = 38% of total unsats Birth Collection of first specimen Satisfactory Collection of second specimen Unsat Specimen arrives at lab Unsat reported Test results released Collection of requested repeat Satisfactory Test results released Specimen arrives at lab 3 days 4 days 8 days 15 days 7 days 44 days

State 2 – Ages when results from a satisfactory specimen are available 1 st Specimen 2 nd Specimen

State % of babies with and unsat 1 st specimen (62% of all unsats) had a satisfactory repeat specimen 9% of patients with unsat 1 st specimens were not documented to have a satisfactory repeat specimen Of these 9% without satisfactory repeat: 67% had no repeat specimen 33% had unsat repeats

State 2 (cont)…… 5.6% of all patients with unsats (1 st or 2 nd ) were not documented to have any satisfactory specimen (9% of 62% = 5.6%)

Conclusions – State 1 Babies with unsat 1 st specimens got valid results 16 days later (median difference) than children with a satisfactory 1 st specimen (29 vs 13 days) 34% of patients with unsats were never documented to have a satisfactory repeat specimen – this state does not follow up unsat specimens

Conclusions – State 2 Babies with unsat 1 st specimens got valid results 18 days later (median difference) than children with a satisfactory 1 st specimen (24 vs 7 days) The impact of an unsat 2 nd specimen is lessened since these patients had results from a satisfactory 1 st specimen 5.6% of all patients with unsat specimens were never documented to have a satisfactory specimen - this state has aggressive follow up procedures and a mandatory second specimen

Bottom Line The delay and possible false negative results caused by unsats could potentially cause harm to affected children Need to scientifically analyze unsat specimens to determine which categories are really unsuitable for testing Need to improve specimen collection (education) Need electronic specimen linking and tracking Need aggressive follow up of unsats

Others involved in these studies…. Scott Grosse, CDC Owen Devine, CDC Harry Hannon, CDC Brad Therrell, NNSGRC Special Thanks to: The Newborn Screening Staff in States 1 and 2