This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mandl, K. D. Articles by Kohane, I. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mandl, K. D. Articles by Kohane, I. S. Related Collections Premature & Newborn Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 269-273

Newborn Screening Program Practices in the United States: Notification, Research, and Consent

Kenneth D. Mandl, MD, MPH^*,, Shlomit Feit^*, Cecilia Larson, MD and Isaac S. Kohane, MD, PhD^*,

^* Children’s Hospital Informatics Program, Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
New England Regional Newborn Screening Program, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

Objective. To define current practice among US newborn screening programs for notification of results, research, and consenting procedures.

Methods. A telephone survey of all US newborn screening program supervisors.

Results. All 51 programs participated. All states reported abnormal results to the infant’s physician, and some also reported to the hospital and parents. Cases with abnormal results were tracked to different endpoints but usually (92.1%) at least until a follow-up appointment was made. A total of 66.6% of programs can communicate with programs in other states; 9.8% enable families to suppress reporting of results to the infant’s physician. No state has a mechanism for parents to prevent results from entering the medical record. Parents or physicians who request results are often authenticated by providing their name (52.9%). Many programs (45.1%) report only to physicians and require just their name (43.5%), an identification number (17.4%), a letter (26.1%), or a parent’s signature (26.1%). A total of 70.6% retain residual blood samples; of these, only 8.3% store them completely devoid of patient identifiers. A total of 49.0% of programs aggregate data for research. In 16.0% of these, the data are publicly available. In 24.0%, researchers obtain approval at their own institution; in 24.0%, researchers obtain approval through the state laboratory Institutional Review Board. In 74.5% of programs, parents are notified but not asked for consent before collection of the sample; 19.6% neither notify parents nor obtain consent before screening.

Conclusions. There is wide variation in practice among the US newborn screening programs. Because the programs collectively manage a comprehensive nationwide genomic databank, careful consideration of how information technology and high-throughput genomic analysis are used will be essential to allow progress in clinical care, public health, and research while protecting individual privacy.

Key Words: neonatal screening • medical records • privacy • genetic screening

---

Received for publication Apr 10, 2001; Accepted Jul 11, 2001.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Z. Hayeems, F. A. Miller, J. Little, J. C. Carroll, J. Allanson, P. Chakraborty, B. J. Wilson, J. P. Bytautas, and R. J. Christensen Informing Parents About Expanded Newborn Screening: Influences on Provider Involvement Pediatrics, September 1, 2009; 124(3): 950 - 958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N J Kerruish, D Webster, and N Dickson Information and consent for newborn screening: practices and attitudes of service providers J. Med. Ethics, September 1, 2008; 34(9): 648 - 652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. N. Lobato, E. Yanni, A. Hagar, C. Myers, A. Rue, C. Evans, L. A. Lambert, R. S. Olney, and for the Louisiana OPH-CDC Newborn Screening Assess Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Newborn Screening in Louisiana Pediatrics, October 1, 2007; 120(4): e749 - e755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. Tarini The Current Revolution in Newborn Screening: New Technology, Old Controversies Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, August 1, 2007; 161(8): 767 - 772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. Tarini, D. A. Christakis, and H. G. Welch State Newborn Screening in the Tandem Mass Spectrometry Era: More Tests, More False-Positive Results Pediatrics, August 1, 2006; 118(2): 448 - 456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Hoff and A. Hoyt Practices and perceptions of long-term follow-up among state newborn screening programs. Pediatrics, June 1, 2006; 117(6): 1922 - 1929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. C. Davis, S. G. Humiston, C. L. Arnold, J. A. Bocchini Jr, P. F. Bass III, E. M. Kennen, A. Bocchini, D. Williams, P. Kyler, and M. Lloyd-Puryear Recommendations for Effective Newborn Screening Communication: Results of Focus Groups With Parents, Providers, and Experts Pediatrics, May 1, 2006; 117(5/S1): S326 - S340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. D. Grosse, C. A. Boyle, A. Kenneson, M. J. Khoury, and B. S. Wilfond From Public Health Emergency to Public Health Service: The Implications of Evolving Criteria for Newborn Screening Panels Pediatrics, March 1, 2006; 117(3): 923 - 929. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Botkin Research for Newborn Screening: Developing a National Framework Pediatrics, October 1, 2005; 116(4): 862 - 871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Kim, M. A. Lloyd-Puryear, and T. F. Tonniges Examination of the Communication Practices Between State Newborn Screening Programs and the Medical Home Pediatrics, February 1, 2003; 111(2): e120 - 126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]