Routine examination in the neonatal period

27Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective - To assess the value of the second neonatal examination as a medical surveillance procedure. Design - Prospective survey of routine neonatal examinations and the abnormalities identified during 8 March-30 June 1988. Setting - Maternity unit with an annual birth rate of 5700. Subjects - For first neonatal examination: 1795 babies born in the unit during the 115 day observation period. For second routine examination: 1747 babies (97.3%) discharged from postnatal ward. Main outcome measures - Missed abnormalities (present but not previously noted); minor abnormalities (superficial infection or trivial or transient abnormalities not requiring intervention); and important abnormalities (unlikely to have been present at first examination but requiring intervention). Results - An abnormality was detected in 158 (8.8%) infants on first neonatal examination. 1428 (79.6%) babies had a routine second examination, which disclosed 63 previously undetected abnormalities. Of these, seven (11%) would have been present on first examination, 49 (78%) were considered minor, and seven (11%) important - the most consequential being dislocatable hips (four infants). Thus an important finding was detected by only 0.5% of second examinations. Conclusions - A second thorough examination in the early neonatal period cannot be justified as a screening procedure. A repeat examination of the hips alone in the first week of life is necessary.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moss, G. D., Cartlidge, P. H. T., Speidel, B. D., & Chambers, T. L. (1991). Routine examination in the neonatal period. British Medical Journal, 302(6781), 878–879. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.302.6781.878

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free