Newborn screening in South Australia: is it universal?

• DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05618.x
• Publication Date: 2019-09-24T10:59:28Z
• Authors: Michael P Metz; Enzo Ranieri; Rosemarie L Gerace; Kevin R Priest; Colin G Luke; Annabelle Chan
• Keywords: Male; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 610; Medically Underserved Area; Obstetric Labor; 03 medical and health sciences; Neonatal Screening; Obstetric Labor, Premature; 0302 clinical medicine; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; South Australia; Humans; Premature; Home Childbirth; Inborn Errors; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Prenatal Care; Length of Stay; Newborn; 3. Good health; Metabolism; Socioeconomic Factors; Health Care Surveys; Regression Analysis; Female; Metabolism, Inborn Errors

Objective: To determine the biochemical screening rate of newborns in South Australia and factors associated with babies not being screened. Design: Matching data SA Newborn Screening Centre database (acquired from Guthrie cards) perinatal collection (compiled supplementary birth records) to how many missed screening. Risk for were identified sociodemographic clinical variables recorded analysed by multivariable unconditional logistic regression analysis. Patients setting: All live births (n = 18 426) 1999, 63 hospitals assisting deliveries or home. Main outcome measures: Rates all among various subgroups; adjusted odds ratios (after analysis) risk Results: The newborn 1999 was 97.8%. Babies born at home, an Aboriginal mother, a mother who normally resided another state higher Other having fewer than seven antenatal visits, prematurity (gestational age < 32 weeks), congenital abnormality baby, use paediatric intensive care, early discharge hospital before 3 days (but especially after less 1 day), death baby during neonatal period. Conclusion: In Australia, while 2.2% certain high-risk groups proportions unscreened significantly higher. With 2% rate, one might expect screening-detectable disorder elude detection every other year Australia.