中文摘要：

目的：探讨专业指导提升新生儿听力筛查系统建立与实施过程中护理的效果。方法选取2015年1~8月院内生产的新生儿2400例，采用数字随机表法随机分为实验组（1200例）和对照组（1200例）。两组新生儿均应用耳声发射技术，在分娩后3天内至产妇出院前（新生儿重症监护室则为高危儿出院前）为新生儿进行听力筛查，高危儿在病情稳定后进行筛查。初筛未通过于出生后42天复筛，如复筛仍未通过则于三个月龄进行听力学诊断。实验组由2名经过听力筛查系统培训且具有主管护师以上职称的人员负责建立听力筛查系统，指导协助护士工作，同时对疑似听力障碍的新生儿进行相应的护理干预。对照组单纯性在护士轮班时行普遍听力筛查及护理工作。观察两组新生儿初筛、复筛、诊断及干预情况。结果实验组初筛率95.42%，初筛未通过11.70%，参与复筛89.55%，未通过复筛38.33%；对照组初筛率为92.83%，初筛未通过13.91%，参与复筛70.32%，未通过53.21%。实验组诊断阳性率39.53%，干预率93.02%；对照组诊断阳性率23.40%，干预率82.98%。上述比较两组差异显著（ P〈0.05）。结论建立新生儿听力筛查系统有利于提高新生儿听力初筛率、复筛率、诊断率以及干预率，降低失访率，有利于听力障碍儿童的早发现早治疗。

英文摘要：

Objective To explore the effect of specialized guidance in enhancing the establishment of newborn hearing screening system and nursing in the process of implementation. Methods A total of 2 400 newborn from January 2014 to January 2015 were selected, and they were randomly divided into experimental group （1 200 patients） and con-trol group （1 200 patients） with digital random table method. Otoacustic emission technology was applied to both groups. The newborns had hearing screening during the period within three days after delivery until the mothers of newborns dis-charged （ for the neonatal intensive care unit, the period extended to the discharging of the high-risk infants） . Besides, the high-risk infants had screening after they had stable condition. Secondary screening was conducted on the ones who didn＆#39;t pass the preliminary screening in 42 days after birth;if the ones didn＆#39;t pass the secondary screening, they would receive audiological diagnosis when they were three months old. For the experimental group, two people who received hearing screening system training and had the nurse-in-charge title or above were responsible for establishing the hearing screening systems, guiding and assisting nurses, and making corresponding nursing intervention on the newborns with suspected hearing impairment. The control group only received common hearing screening and nursing in nurse shifts. Preliminary screening, secondary screening, diagnosis and intervention of the two groups were observed. Results For the experimental group, the rate of preliminary screening was 95. 42 %, the unqualified rate of preliminary screening was 11. 70 %, the rate of secondary screening was 89. 55%, the unqualified rate of secondary screening was 38. 33% . For the control group, the rate of preliminary screening was 92. 83%, the unqualified rate of preliminary screening was 13. 91 %;the rate of secondary screening was 70. 32%, the unqualified rate of secondary screening was 53. 21%. Besides, for the experimental group