Published eLetters
If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.
Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care studyRE: Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care study
Your 2020 Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care study was recently shared with me. I wanted to introduce myself and extend my appreciation for conducting and sharing the results of the study. Our leadership team really enjoyed the juxtaposition of your findings to our experience working directly on-site with primary care physicians. Our company, Physicians Hearing Network's Mission is "To provide patients access to hearing healthcare services through their physician". It's our vision that through the efforts of those organizations like yours and PHN, we can educate, develop, and deliver those best practices to increase both earlier hearing loss detection and treatment recommendations when appropriate. Perhaps we can talk in the near future about our shared interests.
Best RegardsCompeting Interests: None declared. - Page navigation anchor for RE: Response to Questions about ResultsRE: Response to Questions about Results
Hello Dr. Quiniou,
Thank you for your question on our results, I'm happy to clarify. The main data during our intervention period came from a report pertaining to the intervention BPA (best practice alert) in the EHR. This report contained information for all encounters which the BPA fired with the corresponding response to that BPA and additional patient and encounter details. We aggregated this data ourselves to the individual patient level which is where we had the 14,411 patients.
To evaluate whether the number of referrals had increased we had queried the EHR the year prior to the start of the BPA to capture the number of patients similar in nature (I.e.meeting the same criteria which would have fired the BPA) seen at our intervention sites and whether or not they had received a referral in that baseline/pre-intervention time period. That corresponds to the 19,160 patients at baseline. To ensure that our calculation of intervention time period rates didn't deviate purely because of the way we captured the data, we also repeated this EHR query for the intervention time period which resulted in the 24,885 patients. Thus, there were two sources of data for the intervention period (the BPA report and the EHR query) which were both compared with the EHR query at baseline. The reason the 14,411 patients and 24,885 patients for the two intervention data sources do not match up is due to several factors, the largest being that at one site we...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared. - Page navigation anchor for RE: Questions about ResultsRE: Questions about Results
I am a PhD student in Strasbourg, France, and I am carrying out a review of the literature on screening for presbycusis in general medicine. This article is interesting to me, but there are some dark sides to its results for me:
I don't understand how you get the data of the table 2 (referral rates off all patients). Overall, I don't understand how the baseline numbers are calculated. The explanation of the 14,411 total patients of the group "study period ( BPA Report)" is all the eligible patient during the study period, but others total numbers is unclear. Can you give me a explanation ?
ThanksCompeting Interests: None declared.