When to Refer a Hearing-impaired Patient for a Cochlear Implant Evaluation

Cochlear Implant Referral Criteria for the Spanish-Speaking Adult Population

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the "60/60 Guideline" in a diverse patient population.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Data were collected for adult patients (18 years and older) who underwent a cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) between January 2016 and March 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Development of the "60/60 Guideline" has provided better clarity on when to refer English-speaking patients for a CIE. Our study evaluated the effectiveness of this referral tool in the Spanish-speaking population.

RESULTS

In our group of patients who underwent a traditional CIE (n = 402), 209 met unaided and aided traditional cochlear implant (CI) candidacy criteria. Of the 193 individuals who did not meet both components of traditional candidacy criteria, a majority met the aided component (86%) but only 4.6% met the unaided component. When applying the 60/60 Guideline to patients who met traditional criteria, there is a sensitivity rating of 84.7% and a specificity index of 50.3%. For English and Spanish speakers who met traditional criteria but did not meet the 60/60 Guideline, a majority (83.3% English, 87.5% Spanish) had a better ear word recognition score (WRS) greater than 60%, suggesting the unaided WRS is the more restrictive component of the "60/60 Guideline."

CONCLUSION

Application of the "60/60 Guideline" is an effective method to identify potential CI candidates in the English-speaking population; however, it was less effective in the Spanish-speaking population. Spanish-speaking adults should be referred for a CIE when better ear pure tone average is greater than 60 dB hearing loss, regardless of their unaided WRS. This study highlights the need for inclusion of nonlinguistic test measures in the CI referral criteria and test battery to reduce CI access barriers for patients who speak a language other than English.

Perspectives on Support Material for Referrals to Cochlear Implantation Teams

PURPOSE

This study used a collaborative approach to explore the needs, barriers, and facilitators to developing cochlear implant referral information material that would be valuable for hard of hearing adults and referring audiologists.

METHOD

During the development of a prototype referral aid to be used within the Australian context, a multistage qualitative study was conducted using a consultative process, informal and semistructured interviews, as well as online surveys. A deductive directed content analysis approach was applied to assess respondents' perspectives. A total of 106 participants (37 hard of hearing adults and 69 audiologists) were involved across the multiple phases of this study.

RESULTS

Referral practices for the evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy in Australia are highly inconsistent, supporting the need to streamline referral information. The following facilitators were identified to support the development of referral material: appropriate content, perceived patient benefit, and objectivity. Areas for improvement related to the broadness of the content, impact on professional identity, and accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Practical insight from patients and referrers can inform the development of patient-facing material related to cochlear implant referrals. Streamlining information used in educational material could alleviate confusion inherent to varied health literacy levels and support patients in making informed decisions related to pursuing, or not, cochlear implantation candidacy evaluation services.

Development of a novel screening tool for predicting Cochlear implant candidacy

OBJECTIVES

Cochlear implantation (CI) is a well-established treatment for sensorineural hearing loss. Due in part to a lack of referral guidelines, CI technology remains underutilized, and many patients who could benefit from CI may not be referred for evaluation. This study aimed to develop a model for predicting CI candidacy using routine audiometric measures, with the goal of providing guidance to clinicians regarding when to refer a patient for CI evaluation.

METHODS

Unaided three-frequency pure tone average (PTA), unaided speech discrimination score (SDS), and best-aided sentence recognition testing with AZBio sentence lists were collected from 252 subjects undergoing CIE. Candidacy was defined by meeting traditional (AZBio score ≤ 60%), or Medicare criteria (≤40%). A logistic regression model was developed to predict candidacy. Confusion matrices were plotted to determine the sensitivity and specificity at various probability thresholds.

RESULTS

Logistic regression models were capable of predicting probability of candidacy for traditional criteria (P < .001) and Medicare criteria (P < .001). PTA and SDS were significant predictors (P < .001). Using a probability cutoff of .5, the models yielded a sensitivity rate of 91% and 78% for traditional and Medicare criteria, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Probability of CI candidacy may be determined using a novel screening tool for referral. This tool supports individualized counseling, serves as a proof of concept for candidacy prediction, and could be modified based on an institution's philosophy regarding an acceptable false positive rate of referral.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Barriers to Adult Cochlear Implant Care in the United States: An Analysis of Health Care Delivery

Persistent underutilization of cochlear implants (CIs) in the United States is in part a reflection of a lack of hearing health knowledge and the complexities of care delivery in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. An evaluation of the patient experience through the CI health care delivery process systematically exposes barriers that must be overcome to undergo treatment for moderate-to-severe hearing loss. This review analyzes patient-facing obstacles including diagnosis of hearing loss, CI candidate identification and referral to surgeon, CI evaluation and candidacy criteria interpretation, and lastly CI surgery and rehabilitation. Pervasive throughout the process are several themes which demand attention in addressing inequities in hearing health disparities in the United States.