Cited by 251Child and Adolescent HealthHealth Policy Implementation ScienceAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare

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.·2010·Pediatrics

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2009-0388

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In some settings, screening programs have been criticized for identifying children with a high likelihood of developmental delays without being able to ensure timely follow-up evaluation and services.

    “In some settings, screening programs have been criticized for identifying children with high likelihood of developmental delays without being able to ensure timely follow-up evaluation and services (e.g., King et al., 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, T. M., Tandon, S. D., Macias, M. M., Healy, J. A., Duncan, P. M., Swigonski, N. L., Skipper, S. M., & Lipkin, P. H.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • American Academy of Pediatrics (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2010-02-01
Volume
125
Issue
2
Pages
350-360
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2067299533
Cited by
251
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 16
FWCI
25.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (KL2RR025006, K12RR017627)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
developmental screening, child development monitoring, pediatric practice, American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement, early intervention programs, referral tracking, implementation barriers, employee turnover
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Child Development, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Mass Screening, Pediatrics, Primary Health Care, Referral and Consultation, United States, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review