A Multicenter Trial of an Assess-and-Fit Hearing Aid Service Using Open Canal Fittings and Comply Ear Tips

Abstract

Large potential benefits have been suggested for an assess-and-fit approach to hearing health care, particularly using open canal fittings. However, the clinical effectiveness has not previously been evaluated, nor has the efficiency of this approach in a National Health Service setting. These two outcomes were measured in a variety of clinical settings in the United Kingdom. Twelve services in England and Wales participated, and 540 people with hearing problems, not previously referred for assessment, were included. Of these, 68% (n = 369) were suitable and had hearing aids fitted to NAL NL1 during the assess-and-fit visit using either open ear tips, or Comply ear tips. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was used to compare patients fitted with open ear tips with a group of patients from the English Modernization of Hearing Aid Services evaluation, who used custom earmolds. This showed a significant improvement in outcome for those with open ear tips after allowing for age and hearing loss in the analysis. In particular, the benefits of using bilateral open ear tips were significantly larger than bilateral custom earmolds. This assess-and-fit model showed a mean service efficiency gain of about 5% to 10%. The actual gain will depend on current practice, in particular on the separate appointments used, the numbers of patients failing to attend appointments, and the numbers not accepting a hearing aid solution for their problem. There are potentially further efficiency and quality gains to be made if patients are appropriately triaged before referral.

Keywords

hearing aids open canal fitting ear tips assess and fit

References

British Society of Audiology. (2004). Pure tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry with and without masking and determination of uncomfortable loudness levels (Recommended procedure) . Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.thebsa.org.uk/docs/RecPro/PTA.pdf

British Society of Audiology/British Academy of Audiology. (2007). Guidance for the use of real ear measurement in the fitting of digital signal processing hearing aids. Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.thebsa.org.uk/docs/RecPro/REM.pdf

Davis, A. , Smith, P. , Ferguson, M. , Stephens, D. , & Gianopoulos, I. (2007). Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: A study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technology Assessment Reports , 11, 1-294.

Davis A. (2006). Life in the slow lane? The public health challenges of hearing impairment. In Proceedings of the First Hearing Care for Adults International Conference (chapter 3, pp. 39-45). Staefa , Switzerland: Phonak AG.

Department of Health. (2007a). Improving access to audiology services in England. Retrieved November 2007, http://www.18weeks.nhs.uk/cms/ArticleFiles/xv4u5y45d2q5v345nzgu2zet06092006134724/Files/AudiologyReport.pdf

Department of Health. (2007b). Transforming adult hearing services for patients with hearing difficulty. A good practice guide. Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_076884

Dillon, H. (1999). NAL-NL1: A new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids. Hearing Journal, 53, 10-16.

Gatehouse, S. (1999). The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centred outcome measure for hearing aid services . Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 80-103.

Jespersen, C.T. , Groth, J.A. , Kiessling, J. , Brenner, B. , & Jensen, O.D. (2006). Occlusion effect of unilateral versus bilateral hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology , 17, 763-773.

10.

Keidser, G. , Carter, L. , Chalupper, J. , & Dillon, H. (2007). Effect of low-frequency gain and venting effects on the benefit derived from directionality and noise reduction in hearing aids. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 554-568.

11.

Kiessling J. (2006). Open fittings: Something new or old hat? In Proceedings of the Hearing Care for Adults First International Conference (chapter 17, pp. 217-226). Staefa, Switzerland: Phonak AG.

12.

Lantz, J. , Jensen, O.D. , Haastrup, A. , & Olsen, S.O. (2007). Real-ear measurement verification for open, nonoccluding hearing instruments. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 11-16.

13.

Mencher, G.T. , & Davis, A. (2006). Bilateral or unilateral amplification: Is there a difference? A brief tutorial. International Journal of Audiology , 45(Suppl. 1), S3-S11.

14.

Mueller, H.G. , & Ricketts, T.A. (2006). Open-canal fittings: Ten take-home tips. Hearing Journal, 59, 24-39.

15.

Smith, K. , & Oliveira, R. (2001). A major advance in earmolds. Feedback, 12, 13-15.

16.

Smith, P.A. , Riley, A. , Davis, A.C. , Davies, W. , & Jeffs, E. (2008). Study finds compliant eartips can be used instead of custom earmolds. Hearing Journal, 61, 27-36.