Abstract
Objective: To determine whether changes to adult hearing aid provision during COVID-19 affected patient outcomes or service efficiency.
Design: A service evaluation comparing three cohorts: patients who had hearing aid provision prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (the conventional pathway); patients who had hearing aid provision during the initial national lockdown (remote fittings); and patients who had hearing aid provision during the gradual reopening phase (a blended service with both face-to-face and remote service provision). Outcomes measured the effectiveness and efficiency of the service, using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit/Difference Profiles (GHABP/DP) and number of follow-up appointments required. Results were assessed using descriptive statistics and error bars, separately for new and existing users.
Sample: 240 hearing aid users.
Results: Remote fittings adversely impacted the effectiveness of provision for new hearing aid users with a reduction in all GHABP domains. While new users’ benefit was equally as good for blended and conventional service provision, blended provision was less efficient and required more follow-up visits. For existing hearing aid users no differences were seen in GHADP outcomes of different pathways, and remote fittings increased service efficiency.
Conclusions: Remote hearing aid fittings are less effective for new users than hearing aids fitted using standard face-to-face service provision or service provision using a blended model of remote and face-to-face care. Current pathways using a blended model of care are less efficient but equally effective for new hearing aid users compared to provision prior to COVID-19 and result in equivalent patient outcomes in terms of benefit.
Design: A service evaluation comparing three cohorts: patients who had hearing aid provision prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (the conventional pathway); patients who had hearing aid provision during the initial national lockdown (remote fittings); and patients who had hearing aid provision during the gradual reopening phase (a blended service with both face-to-face and remote service provision). Outcomes measured the effectiveness and efficiency of the service, using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit/Difference Profiles (GHABP/DP) and number of follow-up appointments required. Results were assessed using descriptive statistics and error bars, separately for new and existing users.
Sample: 240 hearing aid users.
Results: Remote fittings adversely impacted the effectiveness of provision for new hearing aid users with a reduction in all GHABP domains. While new users’ benefit was equally as good for blended and conventional service provision, blended provision was less efficient and required more follow-up visits. For existing hearing aid users no differences were seen in GHADP outcomes of different pathways, and remote fittings increased service efficiency.
Conclusions: Remote hearing aid fittings are less effective for new users than hearing aids fitted using standard face-to-face service provision or service provision using a blended model of remote and face-to-face care. Current pathways using a blended model of care are less efficient but equally effective for new hearing aid users compared to provision prior to COVID-19 and result in equivalent patient outcomes in terms of benefit.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | American journal of audiology |
| Publication status | Accepted/In press - 29 Jun 2022 |
Keywords
- Hearing aid fitting
- Patient outcomes
- COVID-19
- Remote Healthcare
- telehealth
- Blended provision
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Did changes to adult hearing aid pathways due to COVID-19 affect patient outcomes? A service Evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
-
Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness (ManCAD)
Munro, K. (PI), Millman, R. (PI), Lamb, W. (Support team), Dawes, P. (PI), Plack, C. (PI), Stone, M. (PI), Kluk-De Kort, K. (PI), Moore, D. (PI), Morton, C. (PI), Prendergast, G. (PI), Couth, S. (PI), Schlittenlacher, J. (PI), Chilton, H. (PI), Visram, A. (Researcher), Dillon, H. (PI), Guest, H. (Researcher), Heinrich, A. (PI), Jackson, I. (Researcher), Littlejohn, J. (Researcher), Jones, L. (PI), Lough, M. (Researcher), Morgan, R. (Researcher), Perugia, E. (Researcher), Roughley, A. (Researcher), Whiston, H. (Researcher), Wright, C. (Support team), Saunders, G. (PI), Kelly, C. (PI), Cross, H. (Researcher), Loughran, M. (Researcher) & Hoseinabadi, R. (PI)
Project: Research