Outcomes from 7 years of a direct to audiology referral pathway.

BACKGROUND: The direct to audiology via ENT referral pathway was designed to enhance patient access to audiology services. The pathway is recommended in the Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery: a model of care for Ireland report, published in 2019. AIMS: This study aimed to review the outcomes of all patients that attended our institution over the last seven years. METHODS: A retrospective review of the direct to audiology referral service from March 2014 to December 2021 was conducted. Outcomes were defined by the pathway each patient took following attendance at the audiology clinic. Patients were either (i) discharged, (ii) referred for hearing aid(s) or (iii) identified as candidates for further diagnostic assessments, including a follow-up at the ENT outpatient clinic. RESULTS: During the time frame, 419 patients were triaged to the pathway. The average wait time was 13 days. The average age was 53 years (range 16-96 years, SD = 6.1). Approximately 34% (n = 143) of all patients referred were discharged back to the GP by the audiologist, but 66% (n = 276) presented with 'red flags' and needed further investigation in the ENT clinic, with 30% (n = 73) ultimately requiring imaging studies. Over half (n = 254, 61%) were referred for hearing aids. CONCLUSION: The direct to audiology initiative has proven effective at reducing waiting times for ENT patients solely in need of audiological intervention. Approximately one-third of these referrals to the ENT service can be assessed comprehensively in the audiology clinic, thereby reducing the demand for ENT clinics, enhancing service provision and expediting onwards referral for amplification.

The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: International consensus on outcome measures for trials of interventions for adults with single-sided deafness.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions. METHODS: A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.

A Scoping Review of Studies Comparing Outcomes for Children With Severe Hearing Loss Using Hearing Aids to Children With Cochlear Implants.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice regarding children's candidature for cochlear implantation varies internationally, albeit with a recent global trend toward implanting children with more residual hearing than in the past. The provision of either hearing aids or cochlear implants can influence a wide range of children's outcomes. However, guidance on eligibility and suitability for implantation is often based on a small number of studies and a limited range of speech perception measures. No recent reviews have catalogued what is known about comparative outcomes for children with severe hearing-loss using hearing aids to children using cochlear implants. This article describes the findings of a scoping review that addressed the question "What research has been conducted comparing cochlear implant outcomes to outcomes in children using hearing aids with severe hearing-loss in the better-hearing ear?" The first objective was to catalogue the characteristics of studies pertinent to these children's candidature for cochlear implantation, to inform families, clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers. The second objective was to identify gaps in the evidence base, to inform future research projects and identify opportunities for evidence synthesis. DESIGN: We included studies comparing separate groups of children using hearing aids to those using cochlear implants and also repeated measures studies comparing outcomes of children with severe hearing loss before and after cochlear implantation. We included any outcomes that might feasibly be influenced by the provision of hearing aids or cochlear implants. We searched the electronic databases Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL, for peer-reviewed journal articles with full-texts written in English, published from July 2007 to October 2019. The scoping methodology followed the approach recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute regarding study selection, data extraction, and data presentation. RESULTS: Twenty-one eligible studies were identified, conducted across 11 countries. The majority of children studied had either congenital or prelingual hearing loss, with typical cognitive function, experience of spoken language, and most implanted children used one implant. Speech and language development and speech perception were the most frequently assessed outcomes. However, some aspects of these outcomes were sparsely represented including voice, communication and pragmatic skills, and speech perception in complex background noise. Two studies compared literacy, two sound localization, one quality of life, and one psychosocial outcomes. None compared educational attainment, listening fatigue, balance, tinnitus, or music perception. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a summary of the literature regarding comparative outcomes of children with severe hearing-loss using acoustic hearing aids and children using cochlear implants. Notable gaps in knowledge that could be addressed in future research includes children's quality of life, educational attainment, and complex listening and language outcomes, such as word and sentence understanding in background noise, spatial listening, communication and pragmatic skills. Clinician awareness of this sparse evidence base is important when making management decisions for children with more residual hearing than traditional implant candidates. This review also provides direction for researchers wishing to strengthen the evidence base upon which clinical decisions can be made.

A review of primary care referrals for patients with dizziness and vertigo: prevalence and demographics.

BACKGROUND: International studies show that dizziness and vertigo are a significant burden on the general population, with 20-30% experiencing symptoms over a lifetime. There are no Irish studies indicating prevalence. The aim of this study was to review primary care referrals for patients with dizziness and vertigo to an otolaryngology tertiary centre. METHODS: A review of an out-patient department waiting list was performed on primary care referrals for dizziness and vertigo to an otolaryngology tertiary centre. Demographic information was recorded on all patients referred between May 2017 and August 2019. RESULTS: Two hundred fifteen patients out of 901 patients (24%) referred to an otologist between May 2017 and August 2019 were referred with dizziness as a presenting complaint. The average age was 51 years. F/M ratio was 3:2. The average waiting time was 441 days. The most common associated otological symptom was tinnitus (42%). Relevant comorbidities included anxiety, depression, migraine/headaches and cardiac disease. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a significant number of patients referred to an otologist from primary care are referred with dizziness and vertigo and supports the need for the establishment of multi-disciplinary vestibular/balance centres to address and manage these patients.

Redesigning a Web-Based Stakeholder Consensus Meeting About Core Outcomes for Clinical Trials: Formative Feedback Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and diversity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol. METHODS: The study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs.

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in designs of clinical trials for interventions that seek to restore bilateral and binaural hearing in adults with unilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss ('single-sided deafness').

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to identify, compare and contrast outcome domains and outcome instruments reported in studies investigating interventions that seek to restore bilateral (two-sided) and/or binaural (both ears) hearing in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD). Findings can inform the development of evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials. METHODS: Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.

Correction to: Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: protocol for an international consensus on outcome measures for single sided deafness interventions using a modified Delphi survey.

Following the publication of our article [1], the authors have notified us of a typo in the third bullet point of the Consensus Criteria section.

Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: protocol for an international consensus on outcome measures for single sided deafness interventions using a modified Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness (SSD) describes the presence of a unilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. SSD disrupts spatial hearing and understanding speech in background noise. It has functional, psychological and social consequences. Potential options for rehabilitation include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms of these interventions are documented inconsistently in the literature, using a variety of outcomes ranging from tests of speech perception to quality of life questionnaires. It is therefore difficult to compare interventions when rehabilitating SSD. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study is an international initiative that aims to develop a minimum set of core outcomes for use in future trials of SSD interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: The CROSSSD study adopts an international two-round online modified Delphi survey followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a patient-centred core outcome domain set for SSD based on what is considered critical and important for assessing whether an intervention for SSD has worked. DISCUSSION: The resulting core outcome domain set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials and could have further applications in guiding the use of outcome measures in clinical practice. Standardisation will facilitate comparison of research findings.

The psychological and social consequences of single-sided deafness in adulthood.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the subjective psychological and social effects of highly asymmetric hearing loss (single-sided deafness [SSD]) in adults. DESIGN: Three group interviews were conducted using the critical incident technique and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Eight adults with a clinical diagnosis of a moderately severe hearing loss or greater in one ear and normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. RESULTS: A range of functional hearing difficulties associated with SSD including impaired speech in background noise and reduced spatial awareness were reported to affect social and psychological well-being. Social consequences of SSD resulted from activity limitations and participation restrictions including withdrawal from and within situations. Participants reported psychological effects including worrying about losing the hearing in their other ear, embarrassment related to the social stigma attached to hearing loss and reduced confidence and belief in their abilities to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Single-sided deafness can be associated with many negative consequences. Counselling may help overcome the psychological consequences of hearing loss regardless of whether technological support such as a hearing aid is prescribed. The audiological management of these individuals should support the development of listening strategies and set appropriate expectations for participation in everyday listening situations.