Plain Language Summary: Age-Related Hearing Loss.

The plain language summary explains age-related hearing loss to patients, families, and care partners. The summary is for any patient aged 50 years and older, families, and care partners. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for clinicians. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with an explanation of the support in the literature, the evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life. (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related quality of life at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Disease Intervention Specialist Education for the Future: An Analysis of Public Health Curricula.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the degree of alignment between an existing public health curricula and disease intervention specialist (DIS) workforce training needs, (2) assess the appropriateness of public health education for DISs, and (3) identify existing curriculum gaps to inform future DIS training efforts. METHODS: Using the iterative comparison analysis process of crosswalking, we compared DIS job tasks and knowledge competencies across a standard Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH)-accredited bachelor of science in public health (BSPH) and master of public health (MPH) program core curricula offered by the Georgia Southern University Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health. Four researchers independently coded each DIS task and competency as addressed or not in the curriculum and then discussed all matches and non-matches between coders. Researchers consulted course instructors when necessary, and discussion between researchers continued until agreement was reached on coding. RESULTS: The BSPH curriculum aligned with 75% of the DIS job tasks and 42% of the DIS knowledge competencies. The MPH core curriculum aligned with 55% of the job tasks and 40% of the DIS knowledge competencies. Seven job tasks and 9 knowledge competencies were considered unique to a DIS and would require on-the-job training. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that an accredited public health academic program, grounded in CEPH competencies, could address multiple components of DIS educational preparation. Similar analyses should be conducted at other CEPH-accredited schools and programs of public health to account for variations in curriculum.

Evaluating the Impact of National Public Health Department Accreditation - United States, 2016.

In 2011, the nonprofit Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) launched the national, voluntary public health accreditation program for state, tribal, local, and territorial public health departments. As of May 2016, 134 health departments have achieved 5-year accreditation through PHAB and 176 more have begun the formal process of pursuing accreditation. In addition, Florida, a centralized state in which the employees of all 67 local health departments are employees of the state, achieved accreditation for the entire integrated local public health department system in the state. PHAB-accredited health departments range in size from a small Indiana health department that serves approximately 17,000 persons to the much larger California Department of Public Health, which serves approximately 38 million persons. Collectively, approximately half the U.S. population, or nearly 167 million persons, is covered by an accredited health department. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia now have at least one nationally accredited health department. In a survey conducted through a contract with a social science research organization during 2013-2016, >90% of health departments that had been accredited for 1 year reported that accreditation has stimulated quality improvement and performance improvement opportunities, increased accountability and transparency, and improved management processes.

Marshaling the evidence: the prioritized public health accreditation research agenda.

A national public health department accreditation program was recently developed and implemented by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) to improve the quality and performance of public health departments. Because of its potential to transform public health, it is critical that the evidence base around accreditation be strong. With input from public health practitioners and researchers, PHAB developed a research agenda that highlights priority questions related to barriers and facilitators to seeking and obtaining accreditation, the PHAB standards and review process, metrics to determine the impact of accreditation, and benefits and outcomes associated with accreditation for the departments that undergo the process. We present that agenda, discuss the potential challenges of conducting accreditation research, and call on researchers to build a greater base of evidence related to accreditation.

Public health accreditation addresses issues facing the public health workforce.

As the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) launched the nation's only accreditation program for state, local, tribal, and territorial health departments in September 2011, attention to the issues facing the public health workforce in these health departments was included. PHAB developed several measures in the accreditation standards and measures related to public health workforce development. The accreditation process calls upon health departments to focus more intentionally on their current workforce, while also supporting the development of future public health workers. Working with a group of public health workforce thought leaders, PHAB developed a long-range plan for the expectation of accredited health departments in workforce development. Beginning with the development of intentional standardization in workforce development and moving into future challenges and issues, PHAB uses its platform of quality improvement to bring emphasis on the current and future public health workforce. This article describes the development of the workforce components of public health department accreditation as well as future plans to ensure that the momentum continues. Using data from the accredited health departments at the time of article submission, PHAB also describes some of the approaches that governmental public health departments that have completed the accreditation process are using to develop their own workforce and support the development of the future public health workforce. Challenges faced by health departments in these areas are also described.

A consensus-based approach to national public health accreditation.

The Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) solicited (and continues to solicit) the input of more than 400 subject matter experts in various areas of public health during the development and ongoing revision of the accreditation standards and measures. This process is designed to ensure that the standards and measures remain relevant and accommodate the various contexts under which public health departments practice in the United States. One way PHAB gathers feedback is convening a series of discussion meetings, or think tanks, with thought leaders in specific areas of public health, that focus on specific programmatic areas of public health, on the broader context of public health practice, or on emerging issues, such as public health informatics. The think tanks complement other mechanisms to assure that standards and measures are relevant, including gathering input from the practice community, receiving recommendations from public health departments that have undergone the accreditation process, and reviewing relevant literature. While this process allows PHAB to demonstrate its commitment to continuous quality improvement by modifying and improving the standards and measures, it also serves as a communication vehicle for PHAB to educate thought leaders and public health practitioners about the national accreditation program.