Table 2

Postneonatal screen (HVDT or surveillance)

CentrePS2: test method and pass levelPS4: number to be testedPS9: number actually seen in one clinical sessionPS9: number seen in one session at homePS10: proportion seen at home (%)PS11: number of staff and grade (HV = health visitor)Total cost of screen per 1000 population (£)
ADistraction test 35 dBA695585202 HV25481
BSurveillance60002-150 841 HV14029
CDistraction test 35-40 dBA55208.52-152 4251 HV + assistant18123
DDistraction test 35 dBA2-151 8335102-152 42-152 < 102 HV18610
EDistraction test 35 dBA36959.6Very few1 HV + assistant16643
FDistraction test 35 dBA55002-150 922 HV21997
GDistraction test 35-40 dBA35002-150 82-152 11 HV + assistant19292
HSurveillance questionnaire  at 0, 3, and 8 months30002-150 6No data1 HV17678
JDistraction test2600105–6142 HV26579
  • 2-150 Rounded figures given.

  • 2-151 Considering changing to 45 dBA and the use of an assistant.

  • 2-152 Figures required some degree of estimation of such factors as non-attendance rates.

  • PS1—All centres aimed for universal postneonatal screening, centres A and F reported additional active screening of those considered at risk. Only dominant method is shown for test method.

  • PS5, PS6, PS7. The actual coverage in the seven centres where data were available, varied between 84 and 94% except for one centre which reported coverage of only 69%. A target figure for coverage was only reported by four centres, two giving 90% and two giving 95%.