RESUMO
It has been demonstrated that universal hearing neonatal screening (UHNS) is efficient at providing early diagnosis and rehabilitation for deafness. The risk factors of deafness in children have been identified, but less specifically in those diagnosed after UHNS. In this study, we aim to study these factors in infants who were referred after screening and to compare our experience to recent data. We studied infants referred to our department for diagnosis after screening between January 2018 and December 2021. Their medical history and neonatal hearing risk factors were assessed. Associations between factors were also analyzed. Sixty-six infants were included. A family history of deafness (47%), syndromic deafness (41%), intrauterine growth retardation or prematurity (19.7%), and prolonged NICU admission (18%) were the most observed factors. When analyzing according to these associations, family history of deafness and syndromic cases remained the most prevalent factors (74%), while only five cases (7.8%) presented with other neonatal risk factors only. The majority of congenital hearing loss cases are observed in infants with suspected genetic deafness. Parental counseling, the diagnostic pathway, as well as the healthcare system should be adapted according to these risk factors.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start. METHODS: First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee. RESULTS: Seven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted. CONCLUSION: Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.
