Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Best Practices?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    510

    Default Best Practices?

    It seems like a lot of issues I read about could be greatly improved by a set of Best Practices in audiology. I've seen some articles on best practices, but they have tended to be more marketing oriented. From my reading and limited experiences with hearing aids, some of the things that I think would be included would be:
    1) frequencies tested for audiogram 2) bone conduction frequencies tested 3) Real Ear measurement compared to NAL-2 fitting formula and guidelines for how close a fit is desired

    That's not a complete list, but it seems like if people had a set of best practices or clinical guidelines they would know what to expect and have something to judge their care by. It would also give brick and mortar businesses an advantage because there is no way online businesses could offer real ear measurements. Has anybody seen a set standards of what to expect from hearing testing and hearing aid fitting? As mentioned, I've seen some stuff labelled best practices and clinical guidelines, but they seem "soft."
    .25 .5 1 1.5 2 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

    15 15 20 30 30 55 75 90 NR ​KS7
    10 10 20 15 25 35 65 85 95 WRS 100/92@45/40

  2. #2

    Default

    Best practice standards for audiology already exist. Just google it. All the professional bodies for audiologists have them for example.
    Carol

    Linx 961>Linx2 961> Phonak Audeo V90 312T L&R
    Hz 250 500 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 8K
    L 25 25 15 35 40 40 60 60 55
    R 25 25 15 30 40 35 35 55 50
    Speech
    L 83% 40dB, 100% 50dB
    R 80% 40dB, 97% 50dB

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    510

    Default

    I've googled and read much of them. As I mentioned before, much of them are "soft" or not very specific. Perhaps I'm using wrong terminology. Perhaps Quality Checklist is more appropriate. Something a consumer could use to determine if he/she got an adequate evaluation and fitting. A lot of people seem to believe that verifying with real ear measurements is important, but I haven't seen any standard of how close one should try to get. I think if there were widely agreed upon quality standards it could improve user satisfaction and also help audiologists compete with online sales.
    .25 .5 1 1.5 2 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

    15 15 20 30 30 55 75 90 NR ​KS7
    10 10 20 15 25 35 65 85 95 WRS 100/92@45/40

  4. #4

    Default

    You want a consumer guide to ensuring quality care. That is not the same. Not everyone has the same knowledge and understanding to assess their care so the guides tend to keep it simple. Not really what you are looking for. You would be better off finding the quality guidelines for audiologists but you will have to hunt through the less interesting stuff to find what you want.
    Carol

    Linx 961>Linx2 961> Phonak Audeo V90 312T L&R
    Hz 250 500 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 8K
    L 25 25 15 35 40 40 60 60 55
    R 25 25 15 30 40 35 35 55 50
    Speech
    L 83% 40dB, 100% 50dB
    R 80% 40dB, 97% 50dB

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    NW Indiana
    Posts
    2,497
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Several years ago Consumer reports did a study.

    They used 48 purchases and determined that 2/3rd of them were not set up properly.

    https://youtu.be/5lMuHQT2NtU
    Hidden Content
    KS6's w. Phone Clip +
    There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. -- William Shakespeare





  6. #6

    Default

    I suspect much of the poor quality fits are the consumers not knowing how things should work. Having had aids for 30+ years I am pretty demanding, but grandpa going in for his first fitting isnt going to know how something should fit/work.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenP View Post
    Several years ago Consumer reports did a study.

    They used 48 purchases and determined that 2/3rd of them were not set up properly.

    https://youtu.be/5lMuHQT2NtU
    If 2/3 were not set up right, I wonder how they found a judge to determine the poor results. Were 2/3 of them wrong also?

    They didn't say how they determined if the set up was correct. Theoretically the first full target, R.E.M. verified prescription is "correct" but that would mean no adjustments allowed.
    Carol

    Linx 961>Linx2 961> Phonak Audeo V90 312T L&R
    Hz 250 500 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 8K
    L 25 25 15 35 40 40 60 60 55
    R 25 25 15 30 40 35 35 55 50
    Speech
    L 83% 40dB, 100% 50dB
    R 80% 40dB, 97% 50dB

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Thanks. Further poking and I've found some useful stuff. An Oticon white paper was useful on REM. They suggested + or- 5db at 500, 1000 and 2000 and + or-8db at 3000 and 4000. Also sounds like their software facilitates making adjustments when doing REM. I do find fascinating the disconnect between recommendations and reality.

    [QUOTE=Psocoptera;147611]You want a consumer guide to ensuring quality care. That is not the same. Not everyone has the same knowledge and understanding to assess their care so the guides tend to keep it simple. Not really what you are looking for. You would be better off finding the quality guidelines for audiologists but you will have to hunt through the less interesting stuff to find what you want.[/QUOT
    .25 .5 1 1.5 2 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

    15 15 20 30 30 55 75 90 NR ​KS7
    10 10 20 15 25 35 65 85 95 WRS 100/92@45/40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •