Remote programming of MED-EL cochlear implants: users' and professionals' evaluation of the remote programming experience

Abstract

In all, 33 remote programming sessions were carried out, resulting in 99 completed questionnaires. The overwhelming majority of study participants responded positively to all aspects of remote programming. CI users were satisfied with the results in 96.9% of the programming sessions; 100% of participants would use remote programming again. Although technical problems were encountered, they did not cause the sessions to be considerably longer than face-to-face sessions.

Measuring Sound-Processor Threshold Levels for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Conditioned Play Audiometry via Telepractice

“…This is likely due to the widespread use of personal technology such as cellular phones, tablets, and personal computers, which utilize webcams for video chatting (e.g., Skype, FaceTime, Google Chat). Responses to the questionnaire in the present study are similar to responses obtained in other reports (Hughes et al, 2012;Kuzovkov et al, 2014;Ramos et al, 2009;Wesarg et al, 2010), which generally show a positive attitude toward remote CI service delivery.…”

“…For adult and adolescent recipients, several studies have shown equivalent outcomes in sound-processor programming ("map") levels between telepractice and in-person appointments (Eikelboom, Jayakody, Swanepoel, Chang, & Atlas, 2014;Hughes et al, 2012;Kuzovkov et al, 2014;McElveen et al, 2010;Ramos et al, 2009;Wesarg et al, 2010). In addition, audiologist and recipient feedback regarding telepractice has been positive, indicating that patients would take advantage of telepractice if it were routinely available (Hughes et al, 2012;Kuzovkov et al, 2014;Ramos et al, 2009;Wesarg et al, 2010).…”

“…The programming audiologist used either behavioral or objective measures to set levels; however, the techniques that were used with the children were not explicitly stated (e.g., VRA or CPA). To conclude, Kuzovkov et al (2014) reported that children as young as 5 years of age took part in remote CI programming in their study. The results only stated outcomes of a questionnaire that was administered; no information regarding behavioral techniques was included.…”

“…To compound this problem, missed appointments can delay the fitting of an appropriate map and contribute to suboptimal outcomes. Only a few studies have described the use of telepractice for pediatric CI services (Franck, Pengelly, & Zerfoss, 2006;Kuzovkov et al, 2014;Wesarg et al, 2010). Franck et al (2006) provided a descriptive account of the authors' experience with remote CI programming for 10 patients.…”

“…In addition, audiologist and recipient feedback regarding telepractice has been positive, indicating that patients would take advantage of telepractice if it were routinely available (Hughes et al, 2012;Kuzovkov et al, 2014;Ramos et al, 2009;Wesarg et al, 2010). Device programming for adults and older children is a rather straightforward process; the recipient verbally indicates threshold and upper comfort (C or M, depending on the specific manufacturer's definition) levels for stimulation on all or a subset of intracochlear electrodes, which results in a soundprocessor map.…”