31
1 Early Hearing Detection & Intervention (EHDI) Status, Challenges, Directions Martyn Hyde PhD Web: IHP.mtsinai.on.ca Email: [email protected]

Early Hearing Detection & Intervention (EHDI) Status ......EHDI IS EFFECTIVE! • Better early hearing (HAs, ADs, CIs) • Better language development outcomes • Better family communication

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    6

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 1

    Early Hearing Detection & Intervention (EHDI)Status, Challenges, Directions

    Martyn Hyde PhD

    Web: IHP.mtsinai.on.caEmail: [email protected]

  • 2

    Program Goal

    • Every child with significantly impaired hearing

    • shall have full and equal access to

    • prompt and effective services to optimize

    • their development of communication skills

  • 3

    What the words really mean

    • Every: no child shall be missed• Full: all barriers to access minimized• Equal: no child has limited access• Prompt: as soon as the impairment occurs• Effective: evidence-based, highest quality,

    appropriate to individual needs/characteristics• Development: no quick fix, complex, lengthy• Communication skills: language development,

    early literacy, cognitive & social development, readiness for school…..

  • 4

    Why a program for early hearing?

    • Hearing underpins oral language development• Family knowledge underpins ANY language dev.• Language underpins literacy, school readiness

    • Brain development underlying auditory perception & early language is EXPLOSIVE during infancyUse it or lose it (or never fully develop it…)

    • Universal family right to know?• Universal child right to communicate, to hear?

  • 5

    Why NEWBORN SCREENING ?

    • Early enhancement of H and CD are crucial• Early enhancement requires earlier diagnosis• Earlier diagnosis requires even earlier detection

    BUT

    • Most hearing impairment invisible in young infants• CANNOT be reliably detected behaviourally!• Modern physiological tests can detect it at birth• Access to babies easiest during birth admission

  • 6

    Why UNIVERSAL screening?

    • Hearing impairment more common (~2/1000) than any other disorder for which newborns are screened

    • Only about half of all newborns with impaired hearing have observable risk indicators (5-10% are at risk)

    • Targeted high-risk hearing screening violates the equal access and universal rights principles

    • Universal screening IS practicable and IS NOT costly, given the ensuing benefits to child, family, society

  • 7

    What happened before EHDI?

    • Medical referral was hopelessly ineffective

    • Public & professional awareness was minimal

    • AVERAGE age at detection was 2-3 years

    • Many children not diagnosed until school age

  • 8

    012345678

    Mea

    n A

    ge o

    f Dia

    gnos

    is

    (yea

    rs)

    Screened Referred with highrisk factors

    Referred with nohigh risk factors

    Referral Group

    mild moderate mod-severe severe profound

    Age at diagnosis, by severity and route to diagnosis, N=613 with HAs (Ontario)

    Durieux-Smith & Whittingham, J Sp Lang Pathol Audiol, 2000

  • 9

    EHDI IS EFFECTIVE!

    • Better early hearing (HAs, ADs, CIs)

    • Better language development outcomes

    • Better family communication strategies

    • More informed family decision-making

    • Medical benefits (management, etiology, syndrome detection, surveillance, genetic counselling, etc)

  • 10

    Distribution of age at hearing aid fitting for hearing impaired newborns before and after NHSP introduced

    Age of hearing aid fitting in weeks

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    0 100 200 300 400 500

    Perc

    entil

    e of

    dis

    trib

    utio

    n fo

    r aid

    ed c

    hild

    ren

    NHSP 2003/4

    Before NHSP

    (NHSP eSP data Feb 2005, n=228; Davis et al 1997 n=495)

  • 11

    Kennedy C et al

    NEJM 2006, 354;20:2131-41

  • 12

    UNHS status in Canada

    • NB, ON, PEI, YK implemented

    • BC, NS announced 2005

    • QB draft PH proposal

    • AB, MN, NF, SK partial or NICU-only

  • 13

  • 14

    EHDI SYSTEMS IN THE EUROPEAN AREAEHDI SYSTEMS IN THE EUROPEAN AREA

    IMPLEMENTED (>85%)IMPLEMENTED (>85%)

    PARTIALLY IMPLEM.PARTIALLY IMPLEM.

    ADV. PLANNINGADV. PLANNING

    PILOTSPILOTS

  • 15

    Why is the IHP admired worldwide?

    • Government recognition and support• Quality and dedication of personnel

    • Evidence-based, family-centered• Completeness• Centralized design, evaluation, development• Regional implementation & adaptation• Strong protocols & standardization

  • 16

    Standard protocols are CRUCIAL

    • Driven by evidence: only one best approach

    • Every child/family entitled to standard of care

    • Diverse practices undermine program evaluation and contribution to knowledge

    • Deviations must be known, justified, approved and accounted for in program reporting/QM

  • 17

    The domino effect problem

    • Initial screening coverage 95%• Compliance to re-screening 95%• Test sensitivity 95%• Compliance to diagnostics 95%• Follow-up service uptake 90%• NET PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 73%

    • Continuous quality improvement CRITICAL!

  • 18

    IHP screening tests & protocol

    • Automated Distortion Product OtoacousticEmissions (ADPOAE, ‘AuDX’)

    • Automated Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR, ‘ABaer’)

    • No risk: AuDX > ABaer > ABaer > Dx• At-risk: ABaer > Dx

  • 19

    Screening

    • Protocols are strong and evidence-based• Newborn coverage is very good (>98%)• Overall net refer rates to Dx are good (

  • 20

    Variable referral to diagnostics from 32 IHP regions in 2006

    0

    0.5

    1

    1.52

    2.5

    3

    3.5

    4

    100 1000 10000 100000

    number screened

    Dx a

    cces

    sed

  • 21

    No-risk DPOAE refer % by screener caseload

    0%

    5%

    10%

    15%

    20%

    25%

    30%

    35%

    40%

    45%

    50%

    0 1000 2000 3000 4000

    number screened

    refe

    r rat

    e

  • 22

    WBN DPOAE % refer vs age

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64

    hours after birth

    % r

    efe

    r

    5

    8

    26

    56

    26

    9

    20

    11 6

    21

    5

    32

    Mt. Sinai Hospital, TorontoNov 04 - May 05N= 3,564Refer 5.7% to AABR

  • 23

    Refer rates on 1 and 2 ears as a function of site, well babiesIn hospital based screen

    screening site

    WIR

    WIG

    WAS

    WAL

    TRA

    TGH

    STO

    STH

    SHE

    SHA

    SAL

    ROT

    ROC

    RDB

    PRE

    PIWOXF

    NST

    NOT

    NOR

    NNG

    NEH

    NCH

    MIL

    MAN

    MAC

    LEE

    HILHAV

    HAR

    GRI

    ESX

    ESS

    ERH

    ELC

    ELA

    EKH

    DON

    DEW

    CRO

    CRE

    COV

    COL

    CMP

    CMH

    CMA

    CHS

    CHE

    CAL

    BSS

    BRA

    BOL

    BEH

    BED

    BAR

    AVO

    .080

    .070

    .060

    .050

    .040

    .030

    .020

    .010

    0.000

    -.010

    FINAL1

    FINAL2

    Refer rate vs site- hospital based screening- well babies

  • 24

    Improving screening

    • Understanding best performance & practices • Stronger quality management• Standard province-wide training• Better guidelines/support materials (web etc)• More experience sharing/problem solving

    • Improving critical messaging to families:Confidence, acceptance, concern vs compliance

  • 25

    High-risk surveillance

    • Very comprehensive protocol

    • Better definition of risk indicators & priorities• Better surveillance testing protocols• Better information about yield vs risk• Better family access & compliance strategies

  • 26

    Confirmation & diagnostic tests

    • Rigorous, definitive assessment protocol• Strong audiologist training & decision support

    • Technical/procedural optimization• Data management & new evidence pooling• Information & messaging to families• Linkages & synergy with other service

    providers, eg medical, family support, etc

  • 27

    Medical links & actions

    • Etiologic investigation, HA ADP process, IHP compliance promotion, new risk discovery and prompt IHP referral

    • No standard medical protocol in Ontario• No standard fast-track / info exchange – ad

    hoc local arrangements• Complicated interface with OHIP services• Stronger physician support & engagement

  • 28

    Family Support

    • Psychological support• Information about CD options and services• Empowerment of families

    • Clarity & consistency of role, best practices• Better training, decision support, QM• Family needs, cultural adaptations, timely and

    understandable messages, appropriate & unbiased info, linkages & synergy, consistency

  • 29

    Hearing Aids

    • World-leading protocols• Strong training, decision support, QM

    • Limited funding• Cumbersome ADP-linked process• Better program models conceivable

  • 30

    Communication Development

    • Strengthened services for auditory-oral, auditory-verbal, ASL and dual programs

    • Strong links with pre-school speech-language services

    • Evolving synergies in Early Years Programs

    • Limited evidence base for optimization, option selection, inter-option transition, maximization of family engagement and early literacy dev.

  • 31

    On the horizon

    • Major advances in geneticsScreening, diagnostics, prognostics, treatment

    • Better cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention

    • Improvements in screening, diagnostic and assistive device technologies

    • Improvements in language development procedures and strategies

    Early Hearing Detection & Intervention (EHDI)�Status, Challenges, DirectionsProgram GoalWhat the words really meanWhy a program for early hearing? Why NEWBORN SCREENING ? Why UNIVERSAL screening?What happened before EHDI?Age at diagnosis, by severity and route to diagnosis, N=613 with HAs (Ontario)�� Durieux-Smith & Whittingham, J Sp Lang PathEHDI IS EFFECTIVE!UNHS status in CanadaEHDI SYSTEMS IN THE EUROPEAN AREAWhy is the IHP admired worldwide?Standard protocols are CRUCIALThe domino effect problemIHP screening tests & protocolScreeningVariable referral to diagnostics from 32 IHP regions in 2006Improving screeningHigh-risk surveillanceConfirmation & diagnostic testsMedical links & actionsFamily Support Hearing AidsCommunication DevelopmentOn the horizon