To determine the attitudes of audiologists towards telehealth and use of telehealth for the delivery of ear and hearing services pre-, during- and post- the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify the p...

To (i) identify the impact of COVID-19 on provision of UK audiology services across sectors (ii) compare teleaudiology service provision between private and public sectors before and after the intr...

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate hearing health care professionals' (HHPs) speech testing practices in routine adult audiology services and better understand the facilitators and barriers to speech testing provision. Design: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted. Study Sample: A sample ( N = 306) of HHPs from the public (64%) and private (36%) sectors in the United Kingdom completed the survey. Results: In the United Kingdom, speech testing practice varied significantly between health sectors. Speech testing was carried out during the audiology assessment by 73.4% of private sector HHPs and 20.4% of those from the public sector. During the hearing aid intervention stage, speech testing was carried out by 56.5% and 26.5% of HHPs from the private and public sectors, respectively. Recognized benefits of speech testing included (a) providing patients with relatable assessment information, (b) guiding hearing aid fitting, and (c) supporting a diagnostic test battery. A lack of clinical time was a key barrier to uptake. Conclusions: Use of speech testing varies in adult audiology. Results from this study found that the percentage of U.K. HHPs making use of speech tests was low compared to that of other countries. HHPs recognized different benefits of speech testing in audiology practice, but the barriers limiting uptake were often driven by factors derived from decision makers rather than clinical rationale. Privately funded HHPs used speech tests more frequently than those working in the public sector where time and resources are under greater pressure and governed by guidance that does not include a recommendation for speech testing. Therefore, the inclusion of speech testing in national clinical guidelines could increase the consistency of use and facilitate the comparison of practice trends across centers. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20044457

Spatial hearing relies on the encoding of perceptual sound location cues in space. It is critical for communicating in background noise, and understanding where sounds are coming from (sound localization). Although there are some monoaural spatial hearing cues (i.e., from one ear), most of our spatial hearing skills require binaural hearing (i.e., from two ears). Cochlear implants (CIs) are often the most appropriate rehabilitation for individuals with severe-to-profound hearing loss, with those aged 18 years of age and younger typically receiving bilateral implants (one in each ear). As experience with bilateral hearing increases, individuals tend to improve their spatial hearing skills. Extensive research demonstrates that training can enhance sound localization, speech understanding in noise, and music perception. The BEARS (Both Ears) approach utilizes Virtual Reality (VR) games specifically designed for young people with bilateral CIs to train and improve spatial hearing skills. This paper outlines the BEARS approach by: (i) emphasizing the need for more robust and engaging rehabilitation techniques, (ii) presenting the BEARS logic model that underpins the intervention, and (iii) detailing the assessment tools that will be employed in a clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of BEARS in alignment with the logic model.

To explore experienced hearing aid users’ perspectives of audiological assessments and the patient–audiologist communication dynamic during clinical interactions.A qualitative study was implemented...

Background: Barriers to communication significantly reduce access to health services for people with deafness or hearing loss (PDHL). These barriers contribute to reduced healthcare-seeking behaviour, poorer access to health information, and adverse health outcomes. In response, a multidisciplinary working group of patients, clinicians, researchers, and charity representatives was established to investigate accessibility, communication, and deaf awareness within the United Kingdom’s (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Methodology: A cross-sectional survey was conducted to explore the communication and accessibility experiences of PDHL NHS patients, and their perceived impact on well-being. The survey used rating scales and open-ended questions and data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The survey was made available in British Sign Language (BSL). Results: The online survey was completed by 556 PDHL, including 50 parents, carers, or family members who had accompanied PDHL friends or relatives to NHS appointments. All respondents had used NHS services within the last 24 months, with 10% identifying BSL as their preferred language. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses generated three key themes: 1) Accessibility challenges, 2) Impact of communication difficulties across the service pathway, and 3) Lack of consistent, effective deaf-aware communication. Overall, 64.4% of PDHL NHS patients reported missing 50% or more of the important information provided during their NHS appointments, and 32% were satisfied with the communication skills of healthcare staff. Conclusion: This study presents the largest UK-wide dataset of its kind, and findings highlight the widespread non-compliance with the legally mandated Accessible Information Standards (AIS) within NHS services. The communication barriers identified in this study have significant and long-term implications for the well-being of PDHL patients. Utilising these findings, our working group has developed a set of ‘Recommendations For Change’ to improve deaf awareness and effective communication across the NHS.