scholarly journals Service Delivery to Children With Mild Hearing Loss: Current Practice Patterns and Parent Perceptions

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Walker ◽  
Meredith Spratford ◽  
Sophie E. Ambrose ◽  
Lenore Holte ◽  
Jacob Oleson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Parent Perceptions ◽  
Parent Perception ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss

Purpose This study investigates clinical practice patterns and parent perception of intervention for children with mild hearing loss (HL). Method Ages at and delays between service delivery steps (first diagnostic evaluation, confirmation of HL, hearing aid [HA] fitting, entry into early intervention) were investigated for 113 children with mild HL. Comparisons were made to children with moderate-to-severe HL. Parents of children with mild HL reported reasons for delays and their perceptions of intervention and amplification for their children. Results Seventy-four percent of children with mild HL were identified through the newborn hearing screen; 26% were identified later due to passing or not receiving a newborn hearing screen. Ninety-four percent of children with mild HL were fit with HAs, albeit at significantly later ages than children with moderate-to-severe HL. Most parents indicated that their children benefited from HA use, but some parents expressed ambivalence toward the amount of benefit. Conclusions Audiologists appear to be moving toward regularly providing amplification for children with mild HL. However, delays in HA fittings indicate that further educating professionals and parents about the benefits of early amplification and intervention is warranted to encourage timely fitting and consistent use of HAs.

scholarly journals Timeliness of Service Delivery for Children With Later-Identified Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Walker ◽  
Lenore Holte ◽  
Meredith Spratford ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
Anne Welhaven ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Neonatal Period ◽  
Intervention Programs ◽  
Newborn Period ◽  
Dependent Variables ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Purpose In this study, the authors examined diagnostic and intervention services for children identified with hearing loss (HL) after the newborn period. Method The authors compared ages at service delivery and length of delays between service delivery steps for 57 later-identified children with HL and 193 children who referred for assessment from the newborn hearing screen (NHS). For only later-identified children, regression models were used to investigate relationships among predictor variables and dependent variables related to service delivery. Results Children who referred from the NHS received follow-up services at younger ages than later-identified children. Later-identified children had significantly longer delays from HL confirmation to entry into early intervention, compared to children who referred from the NHS. For later-identified children, degree of HL predicted ages at follow-up clinical services. Children with more severe HL received services at younger ages compared to children with milder HL. Gender predicted the length of the delay from confirmation to entry into early intervention, with girls demonstrating shorter delays. Conclusions The current results lend support to the need for ongoing hearing monitoring programs after the neonatal period, particularly when children enter early intervention programs because of language/developmental delays.

scholarly journals The Development of Statewide Policies and Procedures to Implement Telehealth for Part C Service Delivery

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Cole ◽  
Arlene Stredler-Brown ◽  
Becki Cohill ◽  
Kristina Blaiser ◽  
Diane Behl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Service Delivery Model ◽  
Part C ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Provider Shortages ◽  
Part C Early Intervention

The use of telehealth has been discussed nationally as an option to address provider shortages for children, birth through two, enrolled in Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Early Intervention (EI) programs. Telehealth is an evidence-based service delivery model which can be used to remove barriers in providing EI services to children and their families. In 2016, Colorado’s Part C Early Intervention (EI) program began allowing the use of telehealth as an option for providers to conduct sessions with children and their caregivers. This article outlines the process taken to develop the necessary requirements and supports for telehealth to be incorporated into EI current practice.

Effects of Policy Changes to Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Follow-Up in a University Clinic

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lata A. Krishnan ◽  
Shannon Van Hyfte
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Age Of Diagnosis

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of policy changes on loss to follow-up rates and the ability to achieve the goals of the American Academy of Pediatrics Joint Committee on Infant Hearing Screening (2007) for diagnosis of hearing loss by 3 months, amplification within 1 month of diagnosis, and start of intervention by 6 months. Method From the files of 111 infants, data were extracted on the following: date of birth, birth hospital, hometown, parents' ages, ethnicity, nursery status, medical history, age at initial evaluation and diagnosis, results of evaluation(s), and age at hearing aid fitting and start of early intervention. Data were compared with previously published data from the clinic (Krishnan, 2009). Results Policy changes led to a decrease in loss to follow-up and a younger age at diagnosis of hearing loss. Infants identified with hearing loss were fit with amplification at younger ages but not within 1 month of diagnosis of hearing loss. Policy changes had positive outcomes on loss to follow-up and age of diagnosis and amplification. Conclusions Challenges remain in meeting the goals of amplification within 1 month of diagnosis and documenting the start of early intervention. Improved communication between and education of all parties involved in the care of infants is needed.

Newborn Hearing Screening Speeds Diagnosis and Access to Intervention by 20–25 Months

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 049-057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne S. Sininger ◽  
Amy Martinez ◽  
Laurie Eisenberg ◽  
Elizabeth Christensen ◽  
Alison Grimes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Age At Diagnosis ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Direct Evaluation ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: Newborn Hearing Screening (NHS) programs aim to reduce the age of identification and intervention of infants with hearing loss. It is generally accepted that NHS programs achieve that outcome, but few studies have compared children who were screened to those not screened in the same study and during the same time period. This study takes advantage of the emerging screening programs in California to compare children based on screening status on age at intervention milestones. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of cohorts of children with hearing loss, some screened for hearing loss at birth and others not screened. Specifically, the measures compared are the benchmarks suggested by the Joint Committee on Infant hearing for determining the quality of screening programs. Study Sample: Records from 64 children with bilateral permanent hearing loss who were enrolled in a study of communication outcomes served as data for this study. Of these children, 47 were screened with 39 failing and 8 passing, and 17 were not screened. Intervention: This study was observational and involved no planned intervention. Data Collection and Analysis: Outcome benchmarks included age at diagnosis of hearing loss, age at fitting of amplification, and age at enrollment in early intervention. Delays between diagnosis and fitting or enrollment were also calculated. Hearing screening status of the children included screened with fail outcome, screened with pass outcome, and not screened. Analysis included simple descriptive statistics, and t-tests were used to compare outcomes by groups: screened/not screened, screened pass/screened failed, and passed/not screened. Results: Children with hearing loss who had been screened as newborns were diagnosed with hearing loss 24.62 months earlier, fitted with hearing aids 23.51 months earlier, and enrolled in early intervention 19.98 months earlier than those infants who were not screened. Screening status did not influence delays in fitting of amplification or enrollment in intervention following diagnosis. Eight of the infants with hearing loss (12.5%) passed the NHS, and the ages at benchmarks of those children were slightly but not significantly earlier than infants who had not been screened. Conclusions: The age at achievement of benchmarks such as diagnosis, fitting of amplification, and enrollment in early intervention in children who were screened for hearing loss is on target with stated goals provided by the Academy of Pediatrics and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. In addition, children who are not screened for hearing loss continue to show dramatic delays in achievement of benchmarks by as much as 24 months. Evaluating achievement of benchmarks during the start-up period of NHS programs allowed a direct evaluation of ability of these screening programs to meet stated goals. This demonstrates, unequivocally, that the NHS process itself is responsible for improvements in age at diagnosis, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in intervention.

Missing the Mark in Early Intervention for Babies Who Are Hard of Hearing or Deaf Learning Spoken Language

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy McConkey Robbins ◽  
Teresa Caraway
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
The Core ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Therapy Strategies

In this article, the authors examine factors contributing to a growing early intervention (EI) crisis for babies who are hard of hearing or deaf (HH/D) whose families have chosen spoken language through listening as their desired outcome. At the core of this crisis is the difficulty of, and sometimes resistance to, incorporating nationally accepted best practices for the treatment of childhood hearing loss (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 2007) into the EI policies and systems that were created years before newborn hearing screening, advanced hearing technologies, and specialized therapy strategies existed. Today's infants born HH/D and their families represent a new and changing population requiring transformation in how we conceptualize, develop, and implement EI services. There is evidence that, in many cases, we are missing the mark in the ways in which this population is being served. It is our conviction that an EI model most appropriate for HH/D babies whose families have chosen spoken language through listening has features distinct from EI models proposed for children with other disabilities.

Hearing Loss

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Key Points A child who has passed a newborn hearing screening may still have hearing loss.Early identification of hearing loss is of little value without timely intervention.Even mild hearing loss can have serious consequences, with affected children 10 times likelier than their peers to fail a grade in school.Of children with hearing loss, 30% to 40% have additional disabilities.

scholarly journals The Influence of Hearing Aid Use on Outcomes of Children With Mild Hearing Loss

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 1611-1625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Walker ◽  
Lenore Holte ◽  
Ryan W. McCreery ◽  
Meredith Spratford ◽  
Thomas Page ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Intervention ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Auditory Experience ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss

Purpose This study examined the effects of consistent hearing aid (HA) use on outcomes in children with mild hearing loss (HL). Method Five- or 7-year-old children with mild HL were separated into 3 groups on the basis of patterns of daily HA use. Using analyses of variance, we compared outcomes between groups on speech and language tests and a speech perception in noise task. Regression models were used to investigate the influence of cumulative auditory experience (audibility, early intervention, HA use) on outcomes. Results Full-time HA users demonstrated significantly higher scores on vocabulary and grammar measures compared with nonusers. There were no significant differences between the 3 groups on articulation or speech perception measures. After controlling for the variance in age at confirmation of HL, level of audibility, and enrollment in early intervention, only amount of daily HA use was a significant predictor of grammar and vocabulary. Conclusions The current results provide evidence that children's language development benefits from consistent HA use. Nonusers are at risk in areas such as vocabulary and grammar compared with other children with mild HL who wear HAs regularly. Service providers should work collaboratively to encourage consistent HA use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document