It is an obligation and yet one in two maternity hospitals does not offer newborn screening for deafness. It is a loss of luck for the child, alert specialists who fear that this device will be called into question.
Deafness affects one in 1000 children, but only a third of newborns would benefit from organized screening for deafness. However, for the past six months, it has been a legal obligation. A decree published on April 23 stipulates that all maternity hospitals must systematically offer this screening. Suddenly, the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Facial Surgery (SFORL) is starting to lose patience: “Screening is still not organized in all maternities. It depends on the specific initiatives of certain establishments ”, regrets SFORL. “Admittedly, a survey by the Directorate General of Health has shown that 51% of maternities are screened for deafness. The problem is that this screening is not very organized, ”says Prof. Françoise Denoyelle, pediatric ENT at Trousseau Hospital in Paris. And for good reason, the specifications specifying the practical modalities of this screening have still not been drawn up.
The consequences of this vagueness are already perceptible, considers Françoise Denoyelle. “As nothing is organized at the national level, pediatricians refer children to expert deafness diagnostic and counseling centers, which are overwhelmed. We cannot afford screening for the 800,000 births
annuals. ”
In addition, ENTs, who have been fighting for ten years for this screening, fear that if the blur persists, other consequences will be perceptible. Badly carried out, this screening could give arguments to associations of the deaf. Some of them are in fact firmly opposed to its implementation because they do not want screening to lead to the systematic fitting of hearing aids. This is why doctors demand that this screening be carried out according to the rules of the art. For example, Professor Vincent Couloigner attaches great importance to the speeches that must be made to parents when the results of this test are announced.
Listen to Vincent Couloigner, ENT at Necker hospital in Paris: “A defect in this screening test is not at all synonymous with deafness. “
Always in order not to target associations of the deaf and hard of hearing, Professor Denoyelle insists on one point: “This screening must be offered but not imposed. Otherwise, families risk being shocked ”. Then, if the diagnosis of deafness is made, deaf children must be taken care of in rehabilitation centers. However, for the moment, not all regions have one. The offer is quite heterogeneous. Regional health agencies will therefore also have to put all this to music. If maternity hospitals do not comply with very precise specifications, the other risk is also that children fall through the cracks.
Listen to Françoise Denoyelle, Pediatric ENT at Trousseau hospital in Paris: “Children transferred to other services because they are ill are the most at risk and yet they are often lost to see after a first test.”
If all children do not have equitable access to this screening, SFORL considers it a waste of opportunity. Indeed, language acquisition takes place during the first two years of the child. So if he doesn’t hear, he won’t speak. Currently, it is recommended to place an implant between 1 year and 2 years. However, this fitting is often only done around the age of three. In addition, in almost a third of cases deafness is associated with other disorders. Diagnosing deafness therefore offers a chance to identify other pathologies of the eyes, thyroid or even the heart.
However, three weeks ago, a working group was created at the Ministry of Health. Its members are responsible for working on these specifications for newborn hearing screening. For his defenders, this is a positive point but the game is not won. “Certain associations put enormous pressure on the public authorities to block the organization of screening,” emphasizes Françoise Denoyelle. And the change in the presidential majority, which took place after the publication of the decree, is not done to reassure them. Vincent Couloigner does not hide it: “It was clearly told to us at the ministry that we were not immune to a repeal of this device”.
.