Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1137–1140 | Cite as

Pediatric Resident Attitudes and Knowledge of Critical Congenital Heart Disease Screening

Original Article

Abstract

This study aimed to understand the knowledge, attitudes and confidence level related to critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) screening among pediatric residents. Pediatric residents were assessed via an anonymous survey related to CCHD guidelines and procedures as set out by the New York State Department of Health. The survey was emailed to pediatric residents at a large academic institution. A teaching intervention was performed after the initial survey, which was followed by an identical after-intervention survey. Forty-two residents responded to the pre-intervention survey (n = 42), and forty post-intervention (n = 40). The mean composite knowledge score was 76 % pre-intervention and 92 % post-intervention, p < .001. Pre-intervention only 12 % of the respondents could answer all the questions correctly which increased to 60 % post-intervention. Confidence among residents regarding guidelines increased from 38 to 95 % post-intervention, p < .001. There was a positive correlation between the residents who felt confident of the guidelines and who answered correctly, r = .514, p < .001, n = 82. There was no significant difference between knowledge, attitudes or confidence level scores by year of training or the gender of the residents. Our study demonstrated a significant gap of knowledge among residents related to CCHD screening mandated by New York State health law. There was also a corresponding lack of confidence demonstrated by the residents in the guidelines. These data suggest that residents would benefit from further education on the proper implementation of a CCHD screening program. Further multicenter studies are warranted to assess similar gaps in other residency training programs in New York and wherever these screenings guidelines have been adopted.

Keywords

Critical congenital heart disease Newborn Screening Pulse oximetry 

References

  1. 1.
    Reller MD, Strickland MJ, Riehle-Colarusso T, Mahle WT, Correa A (2008) Prevalence of congenital heart defects in metropolitan Atlanta, 1998–2005. J Pediatr 153(6):807–813CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee KA, Oster ME, Honein MA, Riehle-Colarusso T, Shin M, Correa A (2013) Temporal trends in survival among infants with critical congenital heart defects. Pediatrics 131(5):e1502-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mahle WT, Newburger JW, Matherne GP, Smith FC, Hoke TR, Koppel R, Gidding SS, Beekman RH 3rd, Grosse SD (2009) Role of pulse oximetry in examining newborns for congenital heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics. Circulation 120(5):447–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    New York State Department of Health (2014) Alert to NYS birthing facilities regarding universal newborn screening for critical congenital heart disease [cited 2015 10/12]. https://www.health.ny.gov/community/infants_children/critical_congenital_heart_disease_screening/docs/cchdhcp_letter_and_algorithm.pdf
  5. 5.
    Richmond S, Reay G, Abu H (2002) Routine pulse oximetry in the asymptomatic newborn. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 87(2):F83–F88CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kemper AR, Mahle WT, Martin GR, Cooley WC, Kumar P, Morrow WR et al (2011) Strategies for implementing screening for critical congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 128(5):e1259–e1267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kings County Hospital Center/SUNY Downstate Medical CenterBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations