Implementing developmental screening and referrals: Lessons learned from a national project

Tracy M. King, S. Darius Tandon, Michelle M. Macias, Jill A. Healy, Paula M. Duncan, Nancy L. Swigonski, Stephanie M. Skipper, Paul H. Lipkin

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

119 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the degree to which a national sample of pediatric practices could implement American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for developmental screening and referrals, and to identify factors that contributed to the successes and shortcomings of these efforts. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the AAP released a policy statement on developmental surveillance and screening that included an algorithm to aid practices in implementation. Simultaneously, the AAP launched a 9-month pilot project in which 17 diverse practices sought to implement the policy statement's recommendations. METHODS: Quantitative data from chart reviews were used to calculate rates of screening and referral. Qualitative data on practices' implementation efforts were collected through semistructured telephone interviews and inductively analyzed to generate key themes. RESULTS: Nearly all practices selected parent-completed screening instruments. Instrument selection was frequently driven by concerns regarding clinic flow. At the project's conclusion, practices reported screening more than 85% of patients presenting at recommended screening ages. They achieved this by dividing responsibilities among staff and actively monitoring implementation. Despite these efforts, many practices struggled during busy periods and times of staff turnover. Most practices were unable or unwilling to adhere to 3 specific AAP recommendations: to implement a 30-month visit; to administer a screen after surveillance suggested concern; and to submit simultaneous referrals both to medical subspecialists and local early-intervention programs. Overall, practices reported referring only 61% of children with failed screens. Many practices also struggled to track their referrals. Those that did found that many families did not follow through with recommended referrals. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse sample of practices successfully implemented developmental screening as recommended by the AAP. Practices were less successful in placing referrals and tracking those referrals. More attention needs to be paid to the referral process, and many practices may require separate implementation systems for screening and referrals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)350-360
Number of pages11
JournalPediatrics
Volume125
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2010

Fingerprint

Referral and Consultation
Pediatrics
Interviews

Keywords

  • Developmental screening
  • Implementation
  • Qualitative research
  • Quality improvement
  • Referrals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

King, T. M., Tandon, S. D., Macias, M. M., Healy, J. A., Duncan, P. M., Swigonski, N. L., ... Lipkin, P. H. (2010). Implementing developmental screening and referrals: Lessons learned from a national project. Pediatrics, 125(2), 350-360. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0388

Implementing developmental screening and referrals : Lessons learned from a national project. / King, Tracy M.; Tandon, S. Darius; Macias, Michelle M.; Healy, Jill A.; Duncan, Paula M.; Swigonski, Nancy L.; Skipper, Stephanie M.; Lipkin, Paul H.

In: Pediatrics, Vol. 125, No. 2, 01.02.2010, p. 350-360.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

King, TM, Tandon, SD, Macias, MM, Healy, JA, Duncan, PM, Swigonski, NL, Skipper, SM & Lipkin, PH 2010, 'Implementing developmental screening and referrals: Lessons learned from a national project', Pediatrics, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 350-360. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0388
King, Tracy M. ; Tandon, S. Darius ; Macias, Michelle M. ; Healy, Jill A. ; Duncan, Paula M. ; Swigonski, Nancy L. ; Skipper, Stephanie M. ; Lipkin, Paul H. / Implementing developmental screening and referrals : Lessons learned from a national project. In: Pediatrics. 2010 ; Vol. 125, No. 2. pp. 350-360.
@article{6b8e61a718bb46658baf46ac92d7ed80,
title = "Implementing developmental screening and referrals: Lessons learned from a national project",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To assess the degree to which a national sample of pediatric practices could implement American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for developmental screening and referrals, and to identify factors that contributed to the successes and shortcomings of these efforts. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the AAP released a policy statement on developmental surveillance and screening that included an algorithm to aid practices in implementation. Simultaneously, the AAP launched a 9-month pilot project in which 17 diverse practices sought to implement the policy statement's recommendations. METHODS: Quantitative data from chart reviews were used to calculate rates of screening and referral. Qualitative data on practices' implementation efforts were collected through semistructured telephone interviews and inductively analyzed to generate key themes. RESULTS: Nearly all practices selected parent-completed screening instruments. Instrument selection was frequently driven by concerns regarding clinic flow. At the project's conclusion, practices reported screening more than 85{\%} of patients presenting at recommended screening ages. They achieved this by dividing responsibilities among staff and actively monitoring implementation. Despite these efforts, many practices struggled during busy periods and times of staff turnover. Most practices were unable or unwilling to adhere to 3 specific AAP recommendations: to implement a 30-month visit; to administer a screen after surveillance suggested concern; and to submit simultaneous referrals both to medical subspecialists and local early-intervention programs. Overall, practices reported referring only 61{\%} of children with failed screens. Many practices also struggled to track their referrals. Those that did found that many families did not follow through with recommended referrals. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse sample of practices successfully implemented developmental screening as recommended by the AAP. Practices were less successful in placing referrals and tracking those referrals. More attention needs to be paid to the referral process, and many practices may require separate implementation systems for screening and referrals.",
keywords = "Developmental screening, Implementation, Qualitative research, Quality improvement, Referrals",
author = "King, {Tracy M.} and Tandon, {S. Darius} and Macias, {Michelle M.} and Healy, {Jill A.} and Duncan, {Paula M.} and Swigonski, {Nancy L.} and Skipper, {Stephanie M.} and Lipkin, {Paul H.}",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1542/peds.2009-0388",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "125",
pages = "350--360",
journal = "Pediatrics",
issn = "0031-4005",
publisher = "American Academy of Pediatrics",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementing developmental screening and referrals

T2 - Lessons learned from a national project

AU - King, Tracy M.

AU - Tandon, S. Darius

AU - Macias, Michelle M.

AU - Healy, Jill A.

AU - Duncan, Paula M.

AU - Swigonski, Nancy L.

AU - Skipper, Stephanie M.

AU - Lipkin, Paul H.

PY - 2010/2/1

Y1 - 2010/2/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To assess the degree to which a national sample of pediatric practices could implement American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for developmental screening and referrals, and to identify factors that contributed to the successes and shortcomings of these efforts. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the AAP released a policy statement on developmental surveillance and screening that included an algorithm to aid practices in implementation. Simultaneously, the AAP launched a 9-month pilot project in which 17 diverse practices sought to implement the policy statement's recommendations. METHODS: Quantitative data from chart reviews were used to calculate rates of screening and referral. Qualitative data on practices' implementation efforts were collected through semistructured telephone interviews and inductively analyzed to generate key themes. RESULTS: Nearly all practices selected parent-completed screening instruments. Instrument selection was frequently driven by concerns regarding clinic flow. At the project's conclusion, practices reported screening more than 85% of patients presenting at recommended screening ages. They achieved this by dividing responsibilities among staff and actively monitoring implementation. Despite these efforts, many practices struggled during busy periods and times of staff turnover. Most practices were unable or unwilling to adhere to 3 specific AAP recommendations: to implement a 30-month visit; to administer a screen after surveillance suggested concern; and to submit simultaneous referrals both to medical subspecialists and local early-intervention programs. Overall, practices reported referring only 61% of children with failed screens. Many practices also struggled to track their referrals. Those that did found that many families did not follow through with recommended referrals. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse sample of practices successfully implemented developmental screening as recommended by the AAP. Practices were less successful in placing referrals and tracking those referrals. More attention needs to be paid to the referral process, and many practices may require separate implementation systems for screening and referrals.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To assess the degree to which a national sample of pediatric practices could implement American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for developmental screening and referrals, and to identify factors that contributed to the successes and shortcomings of these efforts. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the AAP released a policy statement on developmental surveillance and screening that included an algorithm to aid practices in implementation. Simultaneously, the AAP launched a 9-month pilot project in which 17 diverse practices sought to implement the policy statement's recommendations. METHODS: Quantitative data from chart reviews were used to calculate rates of screening and referral. Qualitative data on practices' implementation efforts were collected through semistructured telephone interviews and inductively analyzed to generate key themes. RESULTS: Nearly all practices selected parent-completed screening instruments. Instrument selection was frequently driven by concerns regarding clinic flow. At the project's conclusion, practices reported screening more than 85% of patients presenting at recommended screening ages. They achieved this by dividing responsibilities among staff and actively monitoring implementation. Despite these efforts, many practices struggled during busy periods and times of staff turnover. Most practices were unable or unwilling to adhere to 3 specific AAP recommendations: to implement a 30-month visit; to administer a screen after surveillance suggested concern; and to submit simultaneous referrals both to medical subspecialists and local early-intervention programs. Overall, practices reported referring only 61% of children with failed screens. Many practices also struggled to track their referrals. Those that did found that many families did not follow through with recommended referrals. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse sample of practices successfully implemented developmental screening as recommended by the AAP. Practices were less successful in placing referrals and tracking those referrals. More attention needs to be paid to the referral process, and many practices may require separate implementation systems for screening and referrals.

KW - Developmental screening

KW - Implementation

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Quality improvement

KW - Referrals

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=76049117069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=76049117069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1542/peds.2009-0388

DO - 10.1542/peds.2009-0388

M3 - Review article

C2 - 20100754

AN - SCOPUS:76049117069

VL - 125

SP - 350

EP - 360

JO - Pediatrics

JF - Pediatrics

SN - 0031-4005

IS - 2

ER -