Tinnitus referral pathways within the National Health Service in England: a survey of their perceived effectiveness among audiology staff

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the UK, audiology services deliver the majority of tinnitus patient care, but not all patients experience the same level of service. In 2009, the Department of Health released a Good Practice Guide to inform commissioners about key aspects of a quality tinnitus service in order to promote equity of tinnitus patient care in UK primary care, audiology, and in specialist multi-disciplinary centres. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate utilisation and opinions on pathways for the referral of tinnitus patients to and from English Audiology Departments.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We surveyed all audiology staff engaged in providing tinnitus services across England. A 36-item questionnaire was mailed to 351 clinicians in all 163 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts identified as having a tinnitus service. 138 clinicians responded. The results presented here describe experiences and opinions of the current patient pathways to and from the audiology tinnitus service.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The most common referral pathway was from general practice to a hospital-based Ear, Nose & Throat department and from there to a hospital-based audiology department (64%). Respondents considered the NHS tinnitus referral process to be generally effective (67%), but expressed needs for improving GP referral and patients' access to services. 'Open access' to the audiology clinic was rarely an option for patients (9%), nor was the opportunity to access specialist counselling provided by clinical psychology (35%). To decrease the number of inappropriate referrals, 40% of respondents called for greater awareness by referrers about the audiology tinnitus service.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Respondents in the present survey were generally satisfied with the tinnitus referral system. However, they highlighted some potential targets for service improvement including 1] faster and more appropriate referral from GPs, to be achieved through education on tinnitus referral criteria, 2] improved access to psychological services through audiologist training, and 3] ongoing support from tinnitus support groups, national charities, or open access to the tinnitus clinic for existing patients.</p

Mining and analysis of audiology data to find significant factors associated with tinnitus masker

Objectives: The objective of this research is to find the factors associated with tinnitus masker from the literature, and by using the large amount of audiology data available from a large NHS (National Health Services, UK) hearing aid clinic. The factors evaluated were hearing impairment, age, gender, hearing aid type, mould and clinical comments. Design: The research includes literature survey for factors associated with tinnitus masker, and performs the analysis of audiology data using statistical and data mining techniques. Setting: This research uses a large audiology data but it also faced the problem of limited data for tinnitus. Participants: It uses 1,316 records for tinnitus and other diagnoses, and 10,437 records of clinical comments from a hearing aid clinic. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The research is looking for variables associated with tinnitus masker, and in future, these variables can be combined into a single model to develop a decision support system to predict about tinnitus masker for a patient. Results: The results demonstrated that tinnitus maskers are more likely to be fit to individuals with milder forms of hearing loss, and the factors age, gender, type of hearing aid and mould were all found significantly associated with tinnitus masker. In particular, those patients having Age<=55 years were more likely to wear a tinnitus masker, as well as those with milder forms of hearing loss. ITE (in the ear) hearing aids were also found associated with tinnitus masker. A feedback on the results of association of mould with tinnitus masker from a professional audiologist of a large NHS (National Health Services, UK) was also taken to better understand them. The results were obtained with different accuracy for different techniques. For example, the chi-squared test results were obtained with 95% accuracy, for Support and Confidence only those results were retained which had more than 1% Support and 80% Confidence. Conclusions: The variables audiograms, age, gender, hearing aid type and mould were found associated with the choice of tinnitus masker in the literature and by using statistical and data mining techniques. The further work in this research would lead to the development of a decision support system for tinnitus masker with an explanation that how that decision was obtained

Sensitivity of EQ-5D-3L, HUI2, HUI3, and SF-6D to changes in speech reception and tinnitus associated with cochlear implantation

Abstract Purpose There is concern that some generic preference based measures (GPMs) of health-related quality of life may be insensitive to interventions that improve hearing. Establishing where sensitivity arises could contribute to the design of improved measures. Accordingly, we compared the sensitivity of four widely-used GPMs to a clinically effective treatment – cochlear implantation – which restores material degrees of hearing to adults with little or no functional hearing. Methods Participants (N=147) received implants in any of 13 hospitals in the UK. One month before implantation and nine months after, they completed the HUI2, HUI3, EQ 5D 3L, and SF-6D questionnaires, together with the EuroQoL visual analogue scale as a direct measure of health, a performance test of speech reception, and a self-report measure of annoyance due to tinnitus. Results Implantation was associated with a large improvement in speech reception and a small improvement in tinnitus. HUI2 and HUI3 were sensitive to the improvement in speech reception through their Sensation and Hearing dimensions; EQ 5D 3L was sensitive to the improvement in tinnitus through its Anxiety/Depression dimension; SF-6D was sensitive to neither. Participants reported no overall improvement in health. Variation in health was associated with variation in tinnitus, not variation in speech reception. Conclusions None of the four GPMs was sensitive to the improvements in both speech reception and tinnitus that were associated with cochlear implantation. To capture fully the benefits of interventions for auditory disorders, developments of current GPMs would need to be sensitive to both the health-related and non-health-related aspects of auditory dysfunction