Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 7 (7 total).

Gray C, Fox K,Williamson ME. Improving Health Outcomes for Children (IHOC): First STEPS II Initiative: Improving Developmental, Autism, and Lead Screening for Children: Final Evaluation. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine Muskie School of Public Service; 2013.

Link: https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/healthpolicy/17/

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Expert Support (Provider), Modified Billing Practices, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice)

Intervention Results:

Average percentage of documented use of a developmental screening tool increased substantially from baseline to followup for all three age groups (46% to 97% for children under one; 22% to 71% for children 18-23 months; and 22% to 58% for children 24-35 months). Rate of developmental screening based on MaineCare claims increased from the year prior to intervention implementation to the year after implementation for all three age groups (5.3% to 17.1% for children age one; 1.5% to 13.3% for children age two; and 1.2% to 3.3% for children age 3).

Barry S, Paul K, Aakre K, Drake-Buhr S, Willis R. Final Report: Developmental and Autism Screening in Primary Care. Burlington, VT: Vermont Child Health Improvement Program; 2012.

Link:

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Expert Support (Provider), Modified Billing Practices, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS

Intervention Results:

Percentage of developmental screenings at 9-, 18-, 24-, and 30-months all increased from baseline to follow-up (P<.001)
  • Percentage of children screened using standardized developmental screening tool completed by parents increased from baseline to follow-up (11.6% to 32.4%; P<.001)
  • Earls MF, Hay SS. Setting the stage for success: implementation of developmental and behavioral screening and surveillance in primary care practice--the North Carolina Assuring Better Child Health and Development (ABCD) Project. Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):e183-188.

    Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818532

    NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
    Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Modified Billing Practices, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS

    Intervention Results:

    In the North Carolina Assuring Better Child Health and Development Project, careful attention to and training for office process has resulted in a significant increase in screening rates to >70% of the designated well-child visits. The data from the project prompted a change in Medicaid policy, and screening is now statewide in primary practices that perform Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment examinations.

    Lannon CM, Flower K, Duncan P, Moore KS, Stuart J, Bassewitz J. The Bright Futures Training Intervention Project: implementing systems to support preventive and developmental services in practice. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):e163-171.

    Link: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/1/e163

    NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
    Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, STATE, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice)

    Intervention Results:

    Office system changes most frequently adopted were use of recall/reminder systems (87%), a checklist to link to community resources (80%), and systematic identification of children with special health care needs (80%). From baseline to follow-up, increases were observed in the use of recall/reminder systems, the proportion of children's charts that had a preventive services prompting system, and the families who were asked about special health care needs. Of 21 possible office system components, the median number used increased from 10 to 15. Comparing scores between baseline and follow-up for each practice site, the change was significant. Teams reported that the implementation of office systems was facilitated by the perception that a component could be applied quickly and/or easily. Barriers to implementation included costs, the time required, and lack of agreement with the recommendations.

    Malik F, Booker JM, Brown S, McClain C, McGrath J. Improving developmental screening among pediatricians in New Mexico: findings from the developmental screening initiative. Clin Pediatr. 2014;53(6):531-538.

    Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24658910

    NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
    Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS

    Intervention Results:

    At baseline, there were dramatic differences among the practices, with some not engaged in screening at all.

    Honigfeld L, Chandhok L, Spiegelman K. Engaging pediatricians in developmental screening: the effectiveness of academic detailing. J Autism Dev Disord. 2012;42(6):1175-1182.

    Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826585

    NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
    Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Chart Audits (Provider)

    Intervention Results:

    Percentage of screening at 18-month well-child visits increased (P<.05) in all intervention practices. Average screening percentages were 70.8% for intervention practices, 46% for control practices. One intervention practice had a lower screening % than matched control practice (P=.37). Number of screens performed on the same day as a well-child visit increased from 3,442 in 2008 to 12,533 in 2009.

    King TM, Tandon SD, Macias MM, et al. Implementing developmental screening and referrals: lessons learned from a national project. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):350-360.

    Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20100754

    NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
    Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider)

    Intervention Results:

    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.
       

    This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.