Cross-Disciplinary Practices and Perspectives of Auditory Rehabilitation for Adults With Cochlear Implants

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to examine cross-disciplinary clinical practice approaches and professional characterizations of auditory rehabilitation (AR) for adults with cochlear implants (CIs). Method: A survey was distributed nationally to audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and physicians. Included professionals self-identified as hearing health care providers for adults with CIs. Survey topics included the scope of AR, practice patterns and professional roles in service delivery, and barriers to providing comprehensive adult AR services. Results: Sensory management services were reported as standard audiological practice but were considered within the scope of AR by less than half of the 63 participating clinicians. Nearly 80% of respondents viewed counseling and instruction services as components of AR. In addition, 97% believed that the scope of AR practice included perceptual training, but these elements were provided less often than any other component. Audiologists commonly provided counseling and instruction, sometimes in conjunction with speech-language pathologists. Multidisciplinary approaches generally enhanced the breadth and depth of services offered by providers. Common obstacles to comprehensive AR practice included inadequate reimbursement, limited patient uptake, and a scarcity of available and qualified providers. Conclusions: The survey results illustrated varied clinical practice patterns and a range of professional perspectives regarding AR for adults with CIs. A deeper examination of the critical barriers to a more standard narrative and approach is warranted to guide the advancement of comprehensive AR for adults with CIs.

Cochlear Implant Users Describe Need for Lifelong Services

“…To date, there has been minimal evidence of the patient’s voice regarding their preferred CI aftercare 6 . For example, an earlier survey indicated that patients’ experiences with implant services were mainly driven by decisions made by their implant team; 7 another study found that patients had not been given the opportunity to set their own goals or benchmarks 8 .…”