Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects: a repeat UK national survey
  1. Paraskevi Mikrou1,
  2. Anju Singh1,
  3. Andrew K Ewer1,2
  1. 1Neonatal Unit, Birmingham Women’s Hospital, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Andrew K Ewer, Neonatal Unit, Birmingham Women’s Hospital, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; a.k.ewer{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

There is increasing evidence that newborn pulse oximetry screening (POS) improves the identification of those critical congenital heart defects undetected by existing screening methods.1–4 POS is routine in some countries including the USA, Norway and Poland and more are considering its introduction. In 2013, the UK National Screening Committee (NSC) undertook a public consultation and a pilot study in 15 maternity units in England in 2015. The NSC is still considering the evidence.

In 2012, we published a national survey of all UK neonatal units and reported that 18% were performing routine POS (up from 7% in 2010).5 Of the non-screening units, 71% were …

View Full Text


  • Contributors PM developed the questionnaire and the online form and made initial contact with the clinicians. She collated and analysed the data and wrote the first draft of the paper and subsequent edits. AS supported the development of the questionnaire, contacted the non-responders and provided input to the subsequent edits of the manuscript and all other aspects of the work. AKE conceptualised and initiated the study, contacted non-responders, supervised the data analysis and contributed to subsequent versions of the manuscript with overall responsibility for the final version.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.