Implementation of a Hearing Loss Screening Intervention in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Hearing loss (HL) is underdiagnosed and often unaddressed. A recent study of screening for HL using an electronic prompt showed efficacy in increasing appropriate referrals for subsequent testing. We build on the results of this study using a qualitative lens to explore implementation processes through the perspectives of family medicine clinicians. METHODS: We collected clinic observations and semistructured interviews of family medicine clinicians and residents who interacted with the HL prompt. All data were analyzed using thematic, framework, and mixed methods integration strategies. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 clinicians and conducted 10 observations. Thematic analysis resulted in 6 themes: (1) the prompt was overwhelmingly viewed as easy, simple to use, accurate; (2) clinicians considered prompt as an effective way to increase awareness and conversations with patients about HL; (3) clinician and staff buy-in played a vital role in implementation; (4) clinicians prioritized prompt during annual visits; (5) medical assistant involvement in prompt workflow varied by health system, clinic, and clinician; (6) prompt resulted in more conversations about HL, but uncertain impact on patient outcomes. Themes are presented alongside constructs of normalization process theory and intervention outcomes. CONCLUSION: Integration of a HL screening prompt into clinical practice varied by clinician buy-in and beliefs about the impact on patient outcomes, involvement of medical assistants, and prioritization during clinical visits. Further research is needed to understand how to leverage clinician and staff buy-in and whether implementation of a new clinical prompt has sustained impact on HL screening and patient outcomes.

Effective Hearing Loss Screening in Primary Care: The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study.

PURPOSE: Hearing loss, the second most common disability in the United States, is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Identifying it in early stages could prevent its known substantial adverse outcomes. METHODS: A multiple baseline design was implemented to assess a screening paradigm for identifying and referring patients aged ≥55 years with hearing loss at 10 family medicine clinics in 2 health systems. Patients completed a consent form and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHI). An electronic alert prompted clinicians to screen for hearing loss during visits. RESULTS: The 14,877 eligible patients during the study period had 36,701 encounters. Referral rates in the family medicine clinics increased from a baseline rate of 3.2% to 14.4% in 1 health system and from a baseline rate of 0.7% to 4.7% in the other. A general medicine comparison group showed referral rate increase from the 3.0% baseline rate to 3.3%. Of the 5,883 study patients who completed the HHI 25.2% (n=1,484) had HHI scores suggestive of hearing loss; those patients had higher referral rates, 28% vs 9.2% (P <.001). Of 1,660 patients referred for hearing testing, 717 had audiology data available for analysis: 669 (93.3%) were rated appropriately referred and 421 (58.7%) were considered hearing aid candidates. Overall, 71.5% of patients contacted felt their referral was appropriate. CONCLUSION: An electronic alert used to remind clinicians to ask patients aged ≥55 years about hearing loss significantly increased audiology referrals for at-risk patients. Audiologic and audiogram data support the effectiveness of the prompt. Clinicians should consider adopting this method to identify patients with hearing loss to reduce its known and adverse sequelae.

Initial Results of the Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care (EAR-PC) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss (HL) is the second most common disability in the U.S., yet is clinically underdiagnosed. To manage its common adverse psychosocial and cognitive outcomes, early identification of HL must be improved. METHODS: A feasibility study conducted to increase screening for HL and referral of patients aged ≥55 years arriving at two family medicine clinics. Eligible patients were asked to complete a self-administered consent form and the Hearing Handicap Inventory (HHI). Independently, clinicians received a brief educational program after which an electronic clinical prompt (intervention) alerted them (blinded to HHI results) to screen for HL during applicable patient visits. Pre- and post-intervention differences were analyzed to assess the proportion of patients referred to audiology and those diagnosed with HL (primary outcomes) and the audiology referral appropriateness (secondary outcome). Referral rates for those who screened positive for HL on the HHI were compared with those who scored negatively. RESULTS: There were 5,520 eligible patients during the study period, of which 1,236 (22.4%) consented. After the intervention's implementation, audiology referral rates increased from 1.2% to 7.1% (p<0.001). Overall, 293 consented patients (24%) completed the HHI and scored >10, indicating probable HL. Of these 293 patients, 28.0% were referred to audiology versus only 7.4% with scores <10 (p<0.001). Forty-two of the 54 referred patients seen by audiology were diagnosed with HL (78%). Overall, the diagnosis of HL on problem lists increased from 90 of 4,815 patients (1.9%) at baseline to 163 of 5,520 patients (3.0%, p<0.001) over only 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: The electronic clinical prompt significantly increased audiology referrals for at-risk patients for HL in two family medicine clinics. Larger-scale studies are needed to address the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force call to assess the long-term impact of HL screening in community populations.

Using a computer simulation for teaching communication skills: A blinded multisite mixed methods randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess advanced communication skills among second-year medical students exposed either to a computer simulation (MPathic-VR) featuring virtual humans, or to a multimedia computer-based learning module, and to understand each group's experiences and learning preferences. METHODS: A single-blinded, mixed methods, randomized, multisite trial compared MPathic-VR (N=210) to computer-based learning (N=211). Primary outcomes: communication scores during repeat interactions with MPathic-VR's intercultural and interprofessional communication scenarios and scores on a subsequent advanced communication skills objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare outcomes. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: student attitude surveys and qualitative assessments of their experiences with MPathic-VR or computer-based learning. RESULTS: MPathic-VR-trained students improved their intercultural and interprofessional communication performance between their first and second interactions with each scenario. They also achieved significantly higher composite scores on the OSCE than computer-based learning-trained students. Attitudes and experiences were more positive among students trained with MPathic-VR, who valued its providing immediate feedback, teaching nonverbal communication skills, and preparing them for emotion-charged patient encounters. CONCLUSIONS: MPathic-VR was effective in training advanced communication skills and in enabling knowledge transfer into a more realistic clinical situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: MPathic-VR's virtual human simulation offers an effective and engaging means of advanced communication training.