Paeds Cases · preventive-and-community-paediatrics
Positive newborn screen counselling — OSCE
OSCE on explaining a positive screen, residual risk language, and confirmatory pathway without overcalling diagnosis.
On this page & tools
Target exams
Station tasks
Open with empathy and check understanding of the phone message. Explain what a screening flag means and does not mean. Outline the confirmatory plan, timing and who owns follow-up. Address false-positive possibility and parental anxiety without false certainty. Safety-net and close with a clear next contact. [2] [3] [4] [6] [7]
Marking anchors
Must hit: state that screen positive is not a final diagnosis; explain in plain language why programmes accept some false positives to miss fewer true cases; give a concrete confirmatory appointment or timeframe and responsible service; acknowledge anxiety as expected without dismissiveness; avoid inventing disease-specific mortality claims without information. [2] [3] [4] [6]
Should hit: mention that many flags clear on confirmation; offer written information and a named phone contact; document discussion and ensure the family can attend. [4] [5]
Fail if the candidate labels the neonate with a definitive disease from the screen alone, says a later negative screen means zero future risk of all illness, or provides no follow-up owner. [2] [3]
Model communication skeleton
"Thank you for coming in so quickly. I can see how frightening that call was. The newborn screen is designed to catch rare problems early. A flag means we need a second, more specific check—it does not by itself mean your baby has the disease. Many flags turn out not to be disease. We already have a confirmatory plan in 48 hours with the specialist service. Until then, call us on the number I will write down if you are worried. We will stay with you until the answer is clear." [2] [3] [4]
Debrief teaching point
Incomplete pathways and poor counselling convert a public-health tool into private harm. Programme quality includes the conversation after the result, not only the laboratory. [5] [6]
References
- [1]Andermann A Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2008.PMID 18438522
- [2]Grimes DA Uses and abuses of screening tests Lancet (London, England), 2002.PMID 11897304
- [3]Akobeng AK Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2007.PMID 17407452
- [4]Tluczek A Psychosocial consequences of false-positive newborn screens for cystic fibrosis Qualitative health research, 2011.PMID 20852016
- [5]Goldenberg AJ Evaluating Harms in the Assessment of Net Benefit: A Framework for Newborn Screening Condition Review Maternal and child health journal, 2016.PMID 26833040
- [6]Dobrow MJ Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2018.PMID 29632037
- [7]Kemper AR Decision-making process for conditions nominated to the recommended uniform screening panel: statement of the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2014.PMID 23907646