ABSTRACT
Justification: Global developmental delay (GDD) is a relatively common neurodevelopmental disorder; however, paucity of published literature and absence of uniform guidelines increases the complexity of clinical management of this condition. Hence, there is a need of practical guidelines for the pediatrician on the diagnosis and management of GDD, summarizing the available evidence, and filling in the gaps in existing knowledge and practices. Process: Seven subcommittees of subject experts comprising of writing and expert group from among members of Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) and its chapters of Neurology, Neurodevelopment Pediatrics and Growth Development and Behavioral Pediatrics were constituted, who reviewed literature, developed key questions and prepared the first draft on guidelines after multiple rounds of discussion. The guidelines were then discussed by the whole group in an online meeting. The points of contention were discussed and a general consensus was arrived at, after which final guidelines were drafted by the writing group and approved by all contributors. The guidelines were then approved by the Executive Board of IAP. Guidelines: GDD is defined as significant delay (at least 2 standard deviations below the mean with standardized developmental tests) in at least two developmental domains in children under 5 years of age; however, children whose delay can be explained primarily by motor issues or severe uncorrected visual/ hearing impairment are excluded. Severity of GDD can be classified as mild, moderate, severe and profound on adaptive functioning. For all children, in addition to routine surveillance, developmental screening using standardized tools should be done at 9-12 months,18-24 months, and at school entry; whereas, for high risk infants, it should be done 6-monthly till 24 months and yearly till 5 years of age; in addition to once at school entry. All children, especially those diagnosed with GDD, should be screened for ASD at 18-24 months, and if screen negative, again at 3 years of age. It is recommended that investigations should always follow a careful history and examination to plan targeted testing and, vision and hearing screening should be done in all cases prior to standardized tests of development. Neuroimaging, preferably magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, should be obtained when specific clinical indicators are present. Biochemical and metabolic investigations should be targeted towards identifying treatable conditions and genetic tests are recommended in presence of clinical suspicion of a genetic syndrome and/or in the absence of a clear etiology. Multidisciplinary intervention should be initiated soon after the delay is recognized even before a formal diagnosis is made, and early intervention for high risk infants should start in the nursery with developmentally supportive care. Detailed structured counselling of family regarding the diagnosis, etiology, comorbidities, investigations, management, prognosis and follow-up is recommended. Regular targeted follow-up should be done, preferably in consultation with a team of experts led by a developmental pediatrician/ pediatric neurologist.
ABSTRACT
Context: Developmental concerns voiced by parents need to be responded to by structured developmental screening. Screening is the use of validated developmental screening tools to identify children with high risk of developmental delay out of an apparently normal population, while surveillance is the process of monitoring children identified as high risk by screening. Absence of routine screening can be attributed to problems at the level of parents, pediatricians or National policies. Hence vulnerable children are not detected early, and are denied benefit from appropriate developmental interventions. There are no definite guidelines for screening or for suitable tools for screening and surveillance. Objectives: To review existing developmental screening and monitoring tools for children validated in Indian under-five children, and provide a proposed practice paradigm for developmental screening in office practice. Evidence Acquisition: Scientific papers were retrieved by an electronic database search using MeSH terms ‘screening tool’, ‘developmental delay’, and filter of ‘children under 5 years’. Those relevant to office practice and validated internationally or in Indian children were reviewed. Results: Screening tools applicable to Indian office practice have been compared and certain tools have been recommended according to the level of risk of developmental delay. An algorithmic approach to screening has been given along with strategies for incorporation. Conclusions: Screening and surveillance for high risk of developmental delay are essential components of child health care. It is possible to incorporate both into routine practice.