audiology advocacy n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Audiology Advocacy PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Audiology Advocacy

Audiology Advocacy

2 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Audiology Advocacy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Audiology Advocacy Audiologists responsibility to EHDI Mary Beth Brinson, Au.D. Stephanie Disney, M.S. CCC-A

  2. Presentation Points • Historical Perspective Survey comparisons Audiological services comparison • Pediatric Audiology Crisis Professional Organizations and Plans Au.D. solutions • Case Studies • Problem solving and discussion

  3. In 2000, Kentucky audiologists were surveyed about pediatric audiology protocols, equipment availability, training needs and resources, and community collaboration Historical Perspective • 54% of those surveyed responded (41/75)

  4. Access to services by age Based on 2000 survey

  5. Test Protocol Based on 2000 survey

  6. Training Needs Based on 2000 survey

  7. EI Training Based on 2000 survey

  8. Distribution of Audiologists

  9. Pediatric Audiology Crisis • Paradise and Bess (1994) article: Predicted inability to provide quality follow-up from UNHS due to high numbers • Speculated that there were not enough qualified professionals

  10. High Risk Registry vs. UNHS • High risk registry: misses estimated 50% of permanent childhood hearing loss • Crisis is that theoretically we have doubled the babies entering the system • Where are the additional qualified providers?


  12. Audiology Test Battery • Includes physiological measures • Includes developmental appropriate behavioral techniques • Measures that assess integrity of the auditory system • Estimate for each ear type, degree and configuration of hearing loss

  13. JCIH Guidelines(6 through 36 months) • Family and child history • Behavioral Response Audiometry (CPA, VRA)* • Otoacoustic emissions • Acoustic emittance measures • Speech detection and recognition measures* • Electrophysiologic (ABR) testing: at least once* *requires special adaptations for pediatrics

  14. JCIH Guidelines(0 through 6 months) • Family and child history* • Frequency specific electrophysiological test (ABR or ASSR)/Bone conduction* • Otoacoustic emissions • Middle ear function test/ ART* • Behavioral Observation Audiometry* *Requires special adaptations for pediatrics

  15. “Adequate confirmation of an infant’s hearing status cannot be obtained from a single test measure. A battery cross-checks findings of both physiological and behavioral measures.” JCIH

  16. Confirmation of Hearing Loss: Benchmarks • Comprehensive services coordinated between the medical home, family and related professionals with expertise in hearing loss. • Audiologic and medical evaluations before 3 months of age or 3 months after discharge for NICU infants • Infants with diagnosed hearing loss receive and otologic evaluation • The medical and audiologic evaluation process perceived as positive and supportive

  17. Clinical Doctorate?

  18. Percent of Audiologist who hold an Au.D. by State June 2004 1-4% 5-9% 10-14% 15-19% 20-24% 19-25%

  19. Training? • Total number of NCHAM training workshops completed: 14 • Total number of audiologists trained: 299 • Areas workshops located: 2002 Florida 2003 Iowa, San Diego, Redondo Beach, Oakland, Chicago (CA had a separate grant) 2004 Salt Lake City, Boston, Redondo Beach, Boise Philadelphia,Redondo Beach, San Mateo, New Orleans 2005 Next one scheduled is in New Mexico

  20. Credentialing? • Still being developed…… • Doesn’t address today’s needs

  21. Case Studies Case Study 1

  22. Risk factors include: Sepsis Ototoxic Medications Prematurity

  23. Notched tymp due to crying? Behavioral explanation, no cross check? Multi system evaluation?

  24. No Cross Check Parental report of cessation of babbling at 11 months RECHECK in 6 months?

  25. A cross check now? Is this matching results to middle ear measures?

  26. Post op tubes – Behavorial excuse for hearing loss?

  27. Questionable microphonic Questionable microphonic

  28. Audiological Findings • Severe to Profound Bilateral SNHL • Functional PE tubes • Recommend immediate amplification -There are no OAE’s and a lack of systemic evaluation and cross check battery

  29. Ear specific? Fit with powerful Phonak Sonoforte 2 P3AZ HA Cross check? OAE’s?

  30. Pre Cochlear Implant Evaluation ? OAE

  31. Audiological Recommendations • Re-program hearing aid to new hearing loss -Only obtained thresholds at 500, 2K • Re-evaluate with behavorial testing in 3 months -Parents report child has no speech -No physiologic measures planned

  32. 90 dB 85 dB Middle ear evaluated-Tympanometry Cochlear function evaluated- OAE Neural track evaluated- ABR Frequency Specific information

  33. Audiological Recommendations • Diagnosis- Auditory Neuropathy • Discontinue current amplification • Consider mild gain aid • Proceed with Cochlear Implant Evaluation

  34. Identified with a hearing loss so late in the critical language learning period, she is at a disadvantage in the language learning process

  35. Late age of identification and upcoming use of Cochlear Implant……………..

  36. Stephanie: Sorry I haven’t followed up with you sooner, but it has been crazy!!! I got your phone message and wanted to follow up with you. You were right about the Neuropathy. Sue Windmill made the diagnosis in April!!! We consulted with Dr. Linda Hood at LSU, and Vanderbilt agreed to do the implant surgery!!! She was implanted on April 28th and switch on was May 26th. She has been in AV therapy since that time, and seems to be coming along. We have a very long way to go, and are uncertain about the full outcome at this point? I have been on the LSU website, but would love to get more information on AN if I can? Any suggestions where I might find research or other resources?Thank you again for helping us get a diagnosis. If you had not helped us, we would still be searching for the answer.I can’t thank you enough.Sincerely,Christy Adkins

  37. A different take on 1-3-6 • 6 Audiologists • 3 Centers in 2 states • 1 Late Diagnosis

  38. Case Studies Case Study 2

  39. Case 1: TM • Male • Born August 2004 • Failed UNHS bilaterally • No reported risk factors • Normal pregnancy and birth

  40. Case 1:T.M. • UNHS follow-up 8/21/04 • ABR • Results…

  41. Right ear: 60dB ABR 1Results: T.M.

  42. Left ear: 60dB Artifact 90 Sweep 2000 ABR 1Results: T.M.

  43. Tympanogram 1: T.M. Tymps @ 226Hz @ 4 weeks Inappropriate test settings

  44. OAE 1: T.M.

  45. Interpretation of 1st ABR • Actual hearing could not be determined due to child’s awake state • Middle ear dysfunction right ear, normal left • Audiologist not confident in findings • Attributed hearing loss results to high artifact • Scheduled retest at 2 months of age

  46. Left ear: 35dB ABR 2: T.M.

  47. Right ear: 50dB ABR 2: T.M.

  48. ABR 2: Results • Borderline normal hearing left • Possible mild hearing loss right • Again, awake state interfered with tests • Recommendation: Sedated ABR due to high artifact and for second opinion**

  49. ABR 3: T.M. • Different facility • Under sedation • December 2004 • Child is 5 months old