Advertisement

Newborn Screening Collection and Delivery Processes in Michigan Birthing Hospitals: Strategies to Improve Timeliness

  • Amy L. Cochran
  • Beth A. Tarini
  • Mary Kleyn
  • Gabriel Zayas-Cabán
Article
  • 102 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to determine which steps in the newborn screening collection and delivery processes contribute to delays and identify strategies to improve timeliness. Methods Data was analyzed from infants (N = 94,770) who underwent newborn screening at 83 hospitals in Michigan between April 2014 and March 2015. Linear mixed effects models estimated effects of hospital and newborn characteristics on times between steps in the process, whereas simulation explored how to improve timeliness through adjustments to schedules for the state laboratory and for specimen pickup from hospitals. Results Time from collection to receipt of arrival to the state laboratory varied greatly with collection timing (P < 0.001), with specimens collected on Friday or Saturday delayed an average of 9–12 h compared to other specimens. Simulation estimates shifting specimen pickup from 6 p.m. Sunday–Friday to 9 p.m. Sunday–Friday could lead to an additional 12.6% of specimens received by the Michigan laboratory within 60 h of birth. Conclusions for Practice The time between when a specimen is collected and received by the laboratory can be a significant bottleneck in the newborn screening process. Modifying hospital pickup schedules appears to be a simple way to improve timeliness.

Keywords

Newborn screening Genetic testing Newborn screening process Simulation model 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10995_2018_2524_MOESM1_ESM.docx (136 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 135 KB)

References

  1. American College of Medical Genetics Newborn Screening Expert Group. (2006). Newborn screening: Toward a uniform screening panel and system–executive summary. Pediatrics, 117, S296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, D. B., & Gehtland, L. (2015). Newborn screening: Evolving challenges in an era of rapid discovery. JAMA, 313(15), 1511–1512.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bocchini, J. (2015). Timeliness of Newborn Screening: Recommendations from the Secretarys Descretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, Letter to Secretary Burwell. Retrieved June 2016, from http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders/recommendations/timelynewbornscreeninggoalschainletter.pdf.
  4. Centers for Disease Control, Prevention. (2012). CDC grand rounds: Newborn screening and improved outcomes. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(21), 390–393.Google Scholar
  5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. (2013). Blood collection on filter paper from newborn screening. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Instistute.Google Scholar
  6. Gabler, E. (2013). Deadly delays: Delays at hospitals across the country undermine newborn screening programs, putting babies at risk of disability and death. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.Google Scholar
  7. Groves, T. M., Robinson, P., & Fitzgerald, D. A. (2015). Stratifying cystic fibrosis risk for newborn screen infants with equivocal sweat chloride levels. Pediatrics, 136(5), e1490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jiang X., Sidhu, R., Mydock-McGrane, L., Hsu, F. F., Covey, D. F., Scherrer, D. E., et al. (2016). Development of a bile acid-based newborn screen for Niemann-Pick disease type C. Science Translational Medicine, 8(337), 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelton, WD & Law, A. L. (2000). Simulation modeling and analysis. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, S. H. & Whitt, W. (2014). Are call center and hospital arrivals well modeled by nonhomogeneous poisson processes? Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 16(3), 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kohn, L. T. & Corrigan, J. (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system (Vol. 6). Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Maglio, P. P., Sepulveda, M. J., & Mabry, P. L. (2014). Mainstreaming modeling and simulation to accelerate public health innovation. American Journal of Public Health, 104(7), 1181–1186.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Secretary’s Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns. (n.d.). Children Recommendations & Responses from the HHS Secretary. Retrieved June 2016, from Health Care Reform net: http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders/recommendations/index.html.
  14. Young, T., Brailsford, S., Connell, C., Davies, R., Harper, P., & Klein, J. H. (2004). Using industrial processes to improve patient care. British Medical Journal, 328(7432), 162–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biostatistics and Medical InformaticsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Michigan Department of Health and Human ServicesLansingUSA
  5. 5.Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations