ArticleHNO2013
[Using an employee survey as a means of quality assurance in newborn hearing screening].
Article in HNO, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesStudies drawing information not only from technical data but also from surveying human resources behind the universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) appear to be a rarity. This study aims at showing how the state of both knowledge and practical skills among the screening staff are essential aspects in future quality management. MATERIALS AND
methodsA self-developed questionnaire was sent to hospital staff addressing a total of 710 nurses who were registered as having undertaken a UNHS training course. Questions were aimed at aspects of organization, personal practical skills, current problems and improvement possibilities.
resultsHigh rates of occupancy, lack of trained personnel, technical issues and background noise disturbances were considered to be factors that increased time pressure and slowed down procedures. Of the participants 16 % considered communicating a "refer" result to parents a difficult step and 8 % felt insecure when explaining the aims and procedures to parents. There was a high interest in further training sessions.
conclusionsThis survey served well to reveal aspects of improvement in screening procedures and meeting staff needs. The training sessions should outline practical aspects of conducting screening and also professional, sensitive communication to parents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23223926What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.