Socioeconomic and ethnic disparities associated with access to cochlear implantation for severe-to-profound hearing loss: A multicentre observational study of UK adults.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants). Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity. Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p < 0·001), were male (females 1·52; [1·27, 1·81]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·97; [0·96, 0·97]; p < 0·001). They were less likely to be informed of their potential eligibility if they lived in more deprived areas (4th (1·99; [1·49, 2·66]; p < 0·001), 5th (1·75; [1·31, 2·33], p < 0·001), 6th (1·85; [1·39, 2·45]; p < 0·001), 7th (1·66; [1·25, 2·21]; p < 0·001), and 8th (1·74; [1·31, 2·31]; p < 0·001) deciles), the North of England or London (North 0·74; [0·62, 0·89]; p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p < 0·001), were of Asian or black ethnic backgrounds compared to white patients (Asian 0·58; [0·43, 0·79]; p < 0·001; black 0·56; [0·34, 0·92]; p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·98; [0·98, 0·98]; p < 0·001). The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.

Quality of life of Nepali patients with ear disease before and after corrective surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Hearing impairment is a significant burden in the developing world. However, no suitable quality of life (QoL) measures exist for use in Nepal. We aimed to amend and translate the Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI), assessing QoL at any given time, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), assessing change in QoL following intervention, into Nepali and to assess the impact of ear disease and effect of surgery on QoL. METHODS: The GHSI and GBI were translated into Nepali and independently verified. The GHSI was administered by interview to patients before surgery, and the GBI was administered 6 months after surgery. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: The GHSI was administered to 242 patients. In total, 205 had chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) without cholesteatoma and 37 had cholesteatoma. The mean GHSI score was 47.9. There was no significant difference in GHSI scores between patients with CSOM without cholesteatoma and those with cholesteatoma. The GBI was administered to 161 patients, 73 of whom had also been in the GHSI group. In total, 130 had CSOM without cholesteatoma, 31 had cholesteatoma. The mean GBI score was +38.4 with no significant difference between disease groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ear disease in Nepal is associated with reduced QoL, and surgical intervention is associated with improved QoL. There is no difference in QoL or benefit following surgery for CSOM between patients with or without cholesteatoma. There are few QoL measures suitable for the developing world. It is essential to invest in these measures to guide health interventions.

Cold versus hot tonsillectomy: state of the art and recommendations.

An investigation of the risk factors for haemorrhage after tonsillectomy with particular reference to the use of bipolar diathermy for tonsillar dissection and haemostasis, diathermy power settings and coblation tonsillectomy. The findings of the National Prospective Tonsillectomy Audit and subsequent related research are summarised and discussed with reference to the issue of use of hot versus cold tonsillectomy techniques. Additional unpublished data on coblation tonsillectomy is presented. Overall, increased haemorrhage rates were noted for diathermy dissection tonsillectomy (adjusted odds ratio 2.47, p < 0.0001) and coblation tonsillectomy (adjusted odds ratio 3.07, p < 0.0001) compared to the reference category of cold steel tonsillectomy. Use of bipolar diathermy for haemostasis only carried an intermediate risk of haemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio 1.57, p = 0.004). Further investigation of diathermy power settings demonstrated a quantitative relationship between increasing power usage and subsequent haemorrhage. Use of diathermy for haemostasis at the lowest effective setting may carry a comparable risk of haemorrhage to that of cold steel tonsillectomy. Recommendations are given on the optimum tonsillectomy technique for both the older child or adolescent and the particularly young or low weight child.