The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Audiogram and cochlear implant candidacy – UK perspective

Audiogram and cochlear implant candidacy – UK perspective
Audiogram and cochlear implant candidacy – UK perspective
Objective and importance
The candidacy for cochlear implant has changed over time and includes people with lesser degrees of hearing loss. Candidacy is based on the pure-tone audiometry thresholds and aided speech testing. The audiogram does not reflect the actual problems faced by an individual with and without hearing aids. The variability in the actual functional hearing and the pure-tone thresholds makes it difficult for the patients whose audiogram is borderline for cochlear implantation and they are not deriving enough benefit from hearing aids.

Case presentation
Retrospective report of the audiological findings of two patients whose cochlear implant funding was refused based on their audiogram. In both instances, they were not deriving benefit from hearing aids and the pure-tone audiometry results were just outside the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines at 4 kHz.

Conclusions
Cochlear implant candidacy should be individually based and needs to take into account other factors such as work, quality of life, and social impact rather than just adhering to the pure-tone audiometry guidelines. These guidelines should not be considered as strict criteria nor used to deny the benefit of a cochlear implant at the earliest possible opportunity.
1467-0100
241-244
Chundu, Srikanth
8ceaa2a2-6a6d-4d4c-a8e0-4916e671ca7b
Flynn, Sarah L
f8eb4e2c-d340-4a59-8ecb-9ea7eecd34b7
Chundu, Srikanth
8ceaa2a2-6a6d-4d4c-a8e0-4916e671ca7b
Flynn, Sarah L
f8eb4e2c-d340-4a59-8ecb-9ea7eecd34b7

Chundu, Srikanth and Flynn, Sarah L (2014) Audiogram and cochlear implant candidacy – UK perspective. Cochlear Implants International, 15 (4), 241-244. (doi:10.1179/1754762813Y.0000000052).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective and importance
The candidacy for cochlear implant has changed over time and includes people with lesser degrees of hearing loss. Candidacy is based on the pure-tone audiometry thresholds and aided speech testing. The audiogram does not reflect the actual problems faced by an individual with and without hearing aids. The variability in the actual functional hearing and the pure-tone thresholds makes it difficult for the patients whose audiogram is borderline for cochlear implantation and they are not deriving enough benefit from hearing aids.

Case presentation
Retrospective report of the audiological findings of two patients whose cochlear implant funding was refused based on their audiogram. In both instances, they were not deriving benefit from hearing aids and the pure-tone audiometry results were just outside the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines at 4 kHz.

Conclusions
Cochlear implant candidacy should be individually based and needs to take into account other factors such as work, quality of life, and social impact rather than just adhering to the pure-tone audiometry guidelines. These guidelines should not be considered as strict criteria nor used to deny the benefit of a cochlear implant at the earliest possible opportunity.

Text
1754762813Y.0000000052 - Other
Download (162kB)

More information

Published date: 7 July 2014
Organisations: Inst. Sound & Vibration Research

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 372201
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/372201
ISSN: 1467-0100
PURE UUID: 9f086dcb-a91c-4d54-b963-04bf4b6603dc

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 03 Dec 2014 11:06
Last modified: 11 Nov 2019 20:48

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×