Audiogram and cochlear implant candidacy--UK perspective

Factors Affecting the Use of Speech Testing in Adult Audiology

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate hearing health care professionals' (HHPs) speech testing practices in routine adult audiology services and better understand the facilitators and barriers to speech testing provision.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted.

STUDY SAMPLE

A sample (N = 306) of HHPs from the public (64%) and private (36%) sectors in the United Kingdom completed the survey.

RESULTS

In the United Kingdom, speech testing practice varied significantly between health sectors. Speech testing was carried out during the audiology assessment by 73.4% of private sector HHPs and 20.4% of those from the public sector. During the hearing aid intervention stage, speech testing was carried out by 56.5% and 26.5% of HHPs from the private and public sectors, respectively. Recognized benefits of speech testing included (a) providing patients with relatable assessment information, (b) guiding hearing aid fitting, and (c) supporting a diagnostic test battery. A lack of clinical time was a key barrier to uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of speech testing varies in adult audiology. Results from this study found that the percentage of U.K. HHPs making use of speech tests was low compared to that of other countries. HHPs recognized different benefits of speech testing in audiology practice, but the barriers limiting uptake were often driven by factors derived from decision makers rather than clinical rationale. Privately funded HHPs used speech tests more frequently than those working in the public sector where time and resources are under greater pressure and governed by guidance that does not include a recommendation for speech testing. Therefore, the inclusion of speech testing in national clinical guidelines could increase the consistency of use and facilitate the comparison of practice trends across centers.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20044457.

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.

What makes someone choose cochlear implantation? An exploration of factors that inform patient decision making

Objective: Our objective was to understand the factors that determine whether an adult who is eligible for cochlear implantation (CI) choose to take up or not take up the implant.Design: We conducted a qualitative in-depth interview study, informed by grounded theory methods of constant comparison to build a theory to describe why and how people decide to opt for CI or not.Study sample: Our samples were patients from an audiology service in England.Results: Our results describe the key factors in weighing up risks and benefits. These are influenced by living context and support, information and social identity. We identify the key features that impact decision making for adults eligible for cochlear implants. The importance of the patient lifeworld view is discussed.Conclusions: This qualitative study provides the first in depth examination of how and why patients do and do not take up the offer of cochlear implants. It highlights the complex and iterative nature of this decision making and the individualised risks that trade off benefits of implantation.

Expanding unilateral cochlear implantation criteria for adults with bilateral acquired severe sensorineural hearing loss

Objectives

To report on a retrospective cohort study on the effects of expanding inclusion criteria for application of cochlear implants (CIs) on the performance 1-year post-implantation.

Methods

Based on pre-implantation audiometric thresholds and aided speech recognition scores, the data of 164 CI recipients were divided into a group of patients that fulfilled conservative criteria (mean hearing loss at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz > 85 dB HL and phoneme scores with hearing aids < 30%), and the remaining group of patients that felt outside this conservative criterion. Speech recognition scores (in quiet) and quality of life (using the NCIQ) of both groups, measured at 1-year post-implantation, were compared.

Results

The group that felt outside the conservative criterion showed a higher phoneme score at 1-year post-implantation compared to the conservative group, suggesting that relaxed criteria have a positive influence on the speech recognition results with CI. With respect to quality of life, both groups significantly improved 1-year post-implantation. The conservative group showed a higher benefit on the advanced perception domain of the NCIQ. Based on their worse pre-implantation hearing, this was expected.

Conclusions

The data suggest that relaxation of CI indication positively affects the speech recognition performance of patients with severe hearing loss. Both groups of patients showed a positive effect of CI on the quality of life. This benefit relates to communication skills and the subjective day-to-day functioning in society.

Expert opinion: Can different assessments be used to overcome current candidacy issues?

Since the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) review of cochlear implantation in 2009, (NICE, 2009) there have been a number of significant changes to our understanding of the impact of severe-to-profound hearing loss on quality of life and comorbidity with life limiting illness. There have been questions about the validity of current methods of assessing candidacy for cochlear implants. There have also been significant improvements in the effectiveness of implants, the age of successful implantation and a reduction in costs. Additionally, the costs to the health and welfare system of not addressing severe-to-profound hearing loss are often not considered when assessing costs and benefits of this technology and when assessing candidacy criteria. Consideration of these changes since the NICE review suggests the need for an urgent review of the current guidance.

Audiometry-Based Screening Procedure for Cochlear Implant Candidacy

OBJECTIVE

This study defines a screening procedure for cochlear implant (CI) candidacy in hearing aid users by using simple audiometric measures.

METHODS

Within this retrospective study, hearing aid performance and audiometric measures in 185 subjects (318 ears) were analyzed. By means of a linear Naive Bayes classifier, the pure-tone average and the maximum monosyllabic score (PB(max)) were used to predict the aided monosyllabic word score and CI candidacy.

RESULTS

The two parameters PB(max) and four-frequency hearing threshold average can be used to predict speech perception with hearing aids with reasonable accuracy for screening purposes. The classification has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 91%. The classification can be represented by a simple linear formula.

CONCLUSION

CI candidacy can be predicted based on commonly used audiometric measures.Cochlear implant candidacy may be considered if the difference between the average pure-tone threshold (in decibels) and PBmax (in percent) exceeds 8.