Dataset Information

Processing of positive newborn screening results: a qualitative exploration of current practice in England.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore current communication practices for positive newborn screening results from the newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) laboratory to clinicians to highlight differences, understand how the pathways are implemented in practice, identify barriers and facilitators and make recommendations for future practice and research.

Design

A qualitative exploratory design was employed using semi-structured interviews.

Setting

Thirteen NBS laboratories in England.

Participants

Seventy-one clinicians; 22 NBS laboratory staff across 13 laboratories and 49 members of relevant clinical teams were interviewed.

Results

Assurance of quality and consistency was a priority for all NBS laboratories. Findings indicated variation in approaches to communicating positive NBS results from laboratories to clinical teams. This was particularly evident for congenital hypothyroidism and was largely influenced by local arrangements, resources and the fact individual laboratories had detailed standard operating procedures for how they work. Obtaining feedback from clinical teams to the laboratory after the child had been seen could be challenging and time-consuming for those involved. Pathways for communicating carrier results for cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease could be ambiguous and inconsistent which in turn could hamper the laboratories efforts to obtain timely feedback regarding whether or not the result had been communicated to the family. Communication pathways for positive NBS results between laboratories and clinical teams could therefore be time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Conclusion

The importance placed on ensuring positive NBS results were communicated effectively and in a timely fashion from the laboratory to the clinical team was evident from all participants. However, variation existed in terms of the processes used to report positive NBS results to clinical teams and the people involved. Variant practice identified may reflect local needs, but more often reflected local resources and a more consistent 'best practice' approach is required, not just in the UK but perhaps globally.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN15330120.

SUBMITTER: Chudleigh J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7735110 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Processing of positive newborn screening results: a qualitative exploration of current practice in England.

Chudleigh Jane J Chinnery Holly H Holder Pru P Carling Rachel S RS Southern Kevin K Olander Ellinor E Moody Louise L Morris Stephen S Ulph Fiona F Bryon Mandy M Simpson Alan A

BMJ open 20201212 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore current communication practices for positive newborn screening results from the newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) laboratory to clinicians to highlight differences, understand how the pathways are implemented in practice, identify barriers and facilitators and make recommendations for future practice and research.<h4>Design</h4>A qualitative exploratory design was employed using semi-structured interviews.<h4>Setting</h4>Thirteen NBS laboratories in England.<h4>Parti ...[more]

PMID: 33310815

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo implement and evaluate co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results and make recommendations for future research and practice.DesignA process evaluation underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory.SettingThree National Health Service provider organisations in England.ParticipantsTwenty-four healthcare professionals (7 newborn screening laboratory staff and 24 clinicians) and 18 parents were interviewed.InterventionsThree co-designed interventions were implemented in practice: standardised laboratory proformas, communication checklists and an email/letter template.Primary outcome measuresAcceptability and feasibility of the co-designed interventions.ResultsAuditing the implementation of these interventions revealed between 58%-76% of the items on the laboratory proforma and 43%-80% of items on the communication checklists were completed. Interviews with healthcare professionals who had used the interventions in practice provided positive feedback in relation to the purpose of the interventions and the ease of completion both of which were viewed as enhancing communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results. Interviews with parents highlighted the perceived benefit of the co-designed interventions in terms of consistency, pacing and tailoring of information as well as providing reliable information to families following communication of the positive newborn bloodspot screening result. The process evaluation illuminated organisational and contextual barriers during implementation of the co-designed interventions in practice.ConclusionVariations in communication practices for positive newborn bloodspot screening results continue to exist. The co-designed interventions could help to standardise communication of positive newborn screening results from laboratories to clinicians and from clinicians to parents which in turn could improve parents' experience of receiving a positive newborn bloodspot screening result. Implementation highlighted some organisational and contextual barriers to effective adoption of the co-designed interventions in practice.Trial registration numberISRCTN15330120.

Project description:ObjectiveTo record how breast screening centres in England deliver all biopsy results (cancer/non-cancer) from the breast assessment visit.DesignOnline survey of 63 of 79 breast screening centres in England from all regions (East Midlands, East of England, London, North East Yorkshire & Humber, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands). The survey contained quantitative measures of frequency for telephoning biopsy results (routinely, occasionally or never) and optional qualitative free-text responses. Surveys were completed by a staff member from each centre.ResultsThere were no regional trends in the use of telephone results services, (X² (14, n=63)=11.55, p=0.64), Centres who telephoned results routinely did not deliver results sooner than centres who deliver results in-person (X² (16, n=63)=12.76, p=0.69).When delivering cancer results, 76.2% of centres never telephone results and 23.8% of centres occasionally telephone results. No centres reported delivering cancer results routinely by telephone. Qualitative content analysis suggests that cancer results are only telephoned at the patient request and under exceptional circumstances.When delivering non-cancer results, 12.7% of centres never telephoned results, 38.1% occasionally telephoned results and 49.2% routinely telephoned results. Qualitative content analysis revealed different processes for delivering telephone results, including patient choice and scheduling an in-person results appointment for all women attending breast assessment, then ringing non-cancer results unexpectedly ahead of this prebooked appointment.ConclusionsIn the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, breast assessment results that are cancer are routinely delivered in-person. However, non-cancer breast assessment results are often routinely delivered by telephone, despite breast screening policy recommendations. More research is needed to understand the impact of telephoning results on women attending breast assessment, particularly women who receive a non-cancer result. Future research should also consider how women themselves might prefer to receive their results.

Dataset Information

Processing of positive newborn screening results: a qualitative exploration of current practice in England.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Processing of positive newborn screening results: a qualitative exploration of current practice in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets