Did changes to adult hearing aid pathways due to COVID-19 affect patient outcomes? A service Evaluation

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.