Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Article CommentaryDepartmentsA

Should We Screen for Hearing Loss in the Older Adult?

Kathryn Rooney
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2020, 18 (6) iii; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2614
Kathryn Rooney
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • RE: Effective Hearing Loss Screening in Primary Care: The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study
    Rachel Miller, Riley Brubaker, Adrienne Dague, Annalise Laaker, Tanya Magana, Edward Miliavski, Kaitlin Morain, Emily Nepomuceno and Umber Waheed
    Published on: 13 January 2021
  • Published on: (13 January 2021)
    RE: Effective Hearing Loss Screening in Primary Care: The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study
    • Rachel Miller, Medical Student, University of Illinois College of Medicine Rockford
    • Other Contributors:
      • Riley Brubaker, Medical Student
      • Adrienne Dague, Medical Student
      • Annalise Laaker, Medical Student
      • Tanya Magana, Medical Student
      • Edward Miliavski, Medical Student
      • Kaitlin Morain, Medical Student
      • Emily Nepomuceno, Medical Student
      • Umber Waheed, Medical Student

    The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study aimed to improve identification and referral rates of patients with hearing loss by using an Epic electronic medical record Best Practice Alert (BPA). The article states that over 30% of those aged 55 years and older are affected by hearing loss, yet 75% of those with hearing loss remain underdiagnosed and undertreated. Eligible participants completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHI) and a BPA prompted their physician to ask, “Do you have difficulty with your hearing?” Physicians were then tasked to refer their patients as needed. Audiologists who received referrals were asked to rate the necessity of the referral by level of appropriateness, percent hearing loss, and whether they would recommend a hearing aid for the participant. The researchers concluded that a BPA reminder to ask patients aged ≥55 years about hearing loss significantly increased audiology referrals of patients at-risk , which was supported by audiologic and audiogram data.

    This study used a multiple baseline design (MBD) with sites brought into the study approximately 3-4 months apart within two health systems. The group thought an MBD was beneficial as the study’s intervention would result in a difficult-to-reverse change to the hospital networks’ electronic medical record (EMR). Participating sites were Family Medicine clinics within either the University of Michigan (UM) or Beaumont Hospital (BH) care networks. Physicians wou...

    Show More

    The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study aimed to improve identification and referral rates of patients with hearing loss by using an Epic electronic medical record Best Practice Alert (BPA). The article states that over 30% of those aged 55 years and older are affected by hearing loss, yet 75% of those with hearing loss remain underdiagnosed and undertreated. Eligible participants completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHI) and a BPA prompted their physician to ask, “Do you have difficulty with your hearing?” Physicians were then tasked to refer their patients as needed. Audiologists who received referrals were asked to rate the necessity of the referral by level of appropriateness, percent hearing loss, and whether they would recommend a hearing aid for the participant. The researchers concluded that a BPA reminder to ask patients aged ≥55 years about hearing loss significantly increased audiology referrals of patients at-risk , which was supported by audiologic and audiogram data.

    This study used a multiple baseline design (MBD) with sites brought into the study approximately 3-4 months apart within two health systems. The group thought an MBD was beneficial as the study’s intervention would result in a difficult-to-reverse change to the hospital networks’ electronic medical record (EMR). Participating sites were Family Medicine clinics within either the University of Michigan (UM) or Beaumont Hospital (BH) care networks. Physicians would receive the BPA when they met with an eligible patient who was not already diagnosed with hearing loss. The physician was then given 5 options to respond to the BPA, including not addressing it. If that occurred, the alert would reappear at subsequent visits. We found the reappearance of the alert to be a valuable part of the study. The authors reported that if the alert was addressed, on average 1.7 encounters occurred before the doctor screened that patient. The group discussed that Family Medicine doctors typically have full schedules and are thus limited in how many patient concerns can be appropriately addressed during each visit. By having the alert recur, physicians would be able to plan to discuss any potential hearing loss at a patient’s subsequent visit. Nevertheless, physicians did not address the alert for 26.5% of patients even with an average of 2.6 encounters to do so throughout the study period.

    Another aspect the group examined was the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. Participants were asked to complete this 10-question survey, which currently serves as the gold standard to identify at-risk patients. The group thought the survey may have impacted the participants’ role in the study by priming and potentially influencing their answer to the BPA question. For example, completing the HHI before seeing their physician may have caused the participant to be more open to or seek a referral for hearing loss. However, other participants may have minimized their hearing loss symptoms as significant stigma exists around hearing impairment. The authors said that physicians were blinded to the results of the HHI, but as the patient knew their results, it could have easily been shared or influenced either party’s approach to the study.

    A major barrier to this study was physician buy-in. The authors stated that the mental model around hearing loss may have had a role in physicians feeling uncomfortable discussing hearing loss, thus resulting in “not addressed” being the most common BPA response. Though the study included an 11-minute informational video reviewing hearing loss, hearing aids, and patient counseling for this diagnosis, only 28% of UM and 52% of BH clinicians viewed it. The group considered whether physicians would have been more open to addressing the BPA, if other treatment options besides hearing aids had been included in this video. Additionally, our group was particularly intrigued by the study’s finding that only 50% of those recommended to use hearing aids ultimately purchased them, due to cost constraints. Therefore, we thought this suggested that limited preventative options and the lack of affordable treatments may also negatively impact a busy physician’s desire to screen patients for hearing loss.

    The inclusion of numerous sites within two different health systems was an important aspect to this study and its results. As discussed above, more doctors at Beaumont Health clinics attended the information session at the start of the investigation. Both health systems saw a significant increase in referral rates for at-risk patients. However, there was a significant increase in documentation of hearing loss on the patient’s problem list as compared to baseline by BH clinicians. Furthermore, only 6.4% of participants from a BH clinic never discussed hearing loss during an encounter, compared to 32.4% at UM. The group agreed with the authors that the comparatively higher number of BPAs at UM prior to the start of this study may have caused UM physicians to experience alert fatigue and thus possibly played a role in discrepancies between response to the alerts and problem list documentation.

    An additional variable that impacted the study was the inclusion of hearing loss screenings in Medicare wellness visits for persons 65 years. The group felt this was well addressed by the authors and an important piece of the study results. This unexpected potential confounder allowed the authors to use UM general medicine sites as a control group. With the new Medicare guidelines alone, UM general medicine sites saw a non-clinically significant increase in referral rates for hearing loss. Therefore, the group saw this as good support for the study’s BPA prompt as a clinically meaningful way to increase appropriate audiology referrals.

    The authors designed the study to also prove the necessity of referrals based on the opinions of audiologists and participants. The audiologists reported that 93.3% of the referrals were appropriate and that 85% of participants seen had hearing loss. The participants themselves felt their referrals were appropriate 61% of the time and over half were glad their physician brought the subject up. While physicians may not want to screen due to lack of treatments, time, or any number of reasons, the group thought these results showed that patients and audiologists believe increased referrals are needed. Additionally, the group was surprised that 72% of participants with a positive HHI screen (scores ≥10) were not referred. As this is a self-report form filled out by the participant, the HHI score to referral ratio furthers the importance of investigations of interventions like the Epic BPA.

    Finally, our group includes medical students receiving additional training in rural medicine. They added their opinion on both the location of and the participant demographics in this study. It would be difficult to reproduce the results of this study in a rural setting as fewer clinics have Epic or even computers in their exam rooms. A BPA might be seen during pre-charting. Conversely, rural hospitals and clinics are smaller, which may make changes like instituting hearing loss screening guidelines easier. Additionally, the group wondered about the generalizability of the study as over 85% of the participants were white and all spoke English. Language differences are a common barrier to the diagnosis and treatment of any condition. A non-English speaking patient’s hearing loss may be dismissed as a lack of understanding rather than diminished ability.

    In conclusion, the Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study was able to increase the referral rates of patients at-risk for hearing loss to a hearing specialist in two health systems. Our group discussed the benefits and challenges of introducing a Best Practice Alert to electronic healthcare documentation in order to reach this goal. We wondered if this intervention would have lasting impacts, especially on medical students rotating through these clinics. Those students who receive training on hearing loss and experience EMR alerts to ask patients about their symptoms may refer future patients at a greater rate. Additionally, the group wanted more information on interventions that may come from early detection of hearing loss. This study brought light to an area that is underreported, but until there are affordable and accessible treatment options, screening for hearing loss may not become a priority for Family Medicine or other physicians as the authors hoped.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 18 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine
Vol. 18, Issue 6
1 Nov 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • The Issue in Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Should We Screen for Hearing Loss in the Older Adult?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Should We Screen for Hearing Loss in the Older Adult?
Kathryn Rooney
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2020, 18 (6) iii; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2614

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Should We Screen for Hearing Loss in the Older Adult?
Kathryn Rooney
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2020, 18 (6) iii; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2614
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • HOW IT WORKS
    • CURRENT SELECTION
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • AAFP, ACP Release New Acute Pain Clinical Guideline
  • Peer-Reviewed reports in Medical Education Research (PRIMER) Accepted for Inclusion in Pubmed Central
Show more Departments

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Online First

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine