hearing and the health care system: a call to action...prevalence of hearing loss in the 3 united...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Hearing and the Health Care System: A Call to ActionNicholas S. Reed, AuD
8/17/2020
2Conflicts of Interest and Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest:Funded by Johns Hopkins Via NIH (NIA, NIDCD), Cochlear Inc Gift,
Eleanor Schwartz Foundation GiftNon-financial member of Scientific Advisory Board (Shoebox, Inc; Good
Machine Studio)Consultant to Helen of Troy
Acknowledgements:Frank R. Lin, MD, PhDJennifer A Deal, PhDAmber Willink, PhDAdele Goman, PhDJoshua Betz, MS
3Prevalence of Hearing Loss in the United States, 2001-2008
8/17/2020 Lin et al., Arch Int Med. 2011
4Hearing Loss & Hearing Aid Use Prevalence in the U.S. 1999-2006
8/17/2020 Chien & Lin, Arch Int Med. 2012
5
Conceptual Framework
8/17/2020 Reed AJHQ (under review)
Hearing Loss
Delirium
Confusion
CommunicationBreakdown
Satisfaction
Health Care Utilization
(hospitalizations, 30-day
readmission)Agitation/Frustration
Poor Treatment
Understanding
Sensory Deprivation
Exposure Immediate outcomes
Mediators Long-term Outcomes
Isolation
Length of Stay
6
Patient-Provider Communication
8/17/2020 Berwick., Health Affairs, 2002; IOM Quality Chasm Report 2001
IOM 2001: Patient-provider communication is a cornerstone ofpatient-centered care
“…care that is respectful of and responsive to individualpatient preferences, needs, and value…”
Patient-provider communication is related to health careoutcomes Time to diagnosis Treatment understanding Long term post-hospitalization outcomes
7
Hearing Loss and Patient-Provider Communication
8/17/2020Cudmore et al., JAMA-Otolaryngology 2017; Cohen et al. (2017) JAGS
100 adults (>60 years) semi-structured interviews following medicalappointments Hearing loss led to reports of missed consultation content and
unable to understand unfamiliar language
Very few studies consider hearing loss in patient-providercommunication Only 23.9% of patient-provider communication papers involving
older adults included any mention of hearing loss Only 6% included hearing loss in analyses
8
8/17/2020 Shukla et al. 2018 AJHQ
Systematic review of association of hearing loss onpatient-provider communication among inpatients
13/13 studies found hearing loss associated withpoorer perceived patient-provider communication
Emergent themes: Provider perspective that hearing loss contributed to poor
relationships and longer treatment When addressed, patients report perceived better
communication
Hearing Loss and Patient-Provider Communication
9
Conceptual Framework
8/17/2020 Reed AJHQ (under review)
Hearing Loss
Delirium
Confusion
CommunicationBreakdown
Satisfaction
Health Care Utilization
(hospitalizations, 30-day
readmission)Agitation/Frustration
Poor Treatment
Understanding
Sensory Deprivation
Exposure Immediate outcomes
Mediators Long-term Outcomes
Isolation
Length of Stay
10
Hypothesis
8/17/2020
Hearing loss is associated with increased health careutilization and cost
11
Data Source & Analytic Sample
8/17/2020 Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
OptumLabs® Data Warehouse 125 million de-identified data claims from across US Private and Medicare Advantage Physician, hospital, prescription claims information (EMR) Socioeconomic and satisfaction measures Medicare and private insurance surveys
Analytic Sample Jan 1, 2000 to Dec 31, 2014 2-, 5-, 10- year cohorts
12
Outcome Variables
8/17/2020
1. Medical Costs Total
Health plan paid Out of Pocket Isolated to hearing loss
2. Number inpatient hospitalizations3. Total days hospitalized4. Number of readmissions with 30-days of discharge5. Number Emergency Department Visits6. Number of days with at least one outpatient visit
Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
13
Hearing Loss and Health Care Outcomes
8/17/2020 Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
Methodologic question:
How to measure hearing loss in a claims data set?
• Careful approach• Several limitations
• Appropriate coding from physicians?• Capture hearing aids (not covered by insurance)• Undocumented hearing loss
14
Exposure
8/17/2020
Evidence of Age-Related Hearing Loss from ICD codes ≥ 50 years No hearing loss ICD code two years prior to index date Included
ICD codes for hearing loss and/or sensorineural hearing loss Excluded
ICD hearing codes such as sudden, hyperacusis, neural, conductive,central, etc.
Persons with same year code related to ear disease such asotorrhea, otalgia
Hearing aid usage evidence from ICD codes
Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
15
Methods
8/17/2020
Propensity matched (1:1) to those with evident hearing loss to those without anyevidence of hearing loss (at any point)
Matching variables Insurance type Demographics (Age, Sex, Education, Income) Census geographic region Education level Charlson co-morbidty index Number of office visits, inpatient stays, ED visits Dementia, depression, stroke, cancer (breast, prostate, renal cell, colorectal) Baseline medical costs
Regression analyses (linear – cost, poisson – 30-day readmissions)
Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
16Difference in Unadjusted Mean Costs, Hearing Loss vs. No Hearing Loss
8/17/2020
Hearing lossassociatedwith a 46.5%increase inhealthcarecosts over a10-yearperiod
Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
17Unadjusted Difference in 30-day Readmissions, Hearing Loss vs. No Hearing Loss
8/17/2020
Hearing lossassociatedwith a 44%increase inrisk of 30-dayreadmissionsover 10-years
Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
18Hearing Loss and Health Care Utilization:Public Consumption
8/17/2020 Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
19Hearing Loss and Health Care Utilization:Public Consumption
8/17/2020 Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
20
Summary
8/17/2020
Older adults with hearing loss experience higher health care costs andutilization patterns compared with adults without hearing loss
Limitations: Claims data presents inherent limitations Designed for billing Exposure capture Limited hearing aid data
Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology; Simpson et al. 2016 JAMA-Otolaryngology
21
Cost and Utilization
8/17/2020 Mahmoudi et al. (2018) JAMA-OTO
Do Hearing Aids Effect the Relationship? In theory, hearing aids could improve
communication Issues in measurement?
22
• People with hearing loss who use hearing aids are different to those with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids• Income• Education• Health seeking behaviors• Perception of hearing loss
• Difficult to capture hearing aid use in claims analyses
Hearing Aid Users
8/17/2020
23
Example study:
Willink A, Reed NS, Lin FR. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hearing Care Services: What Is It Worth to Medicare? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2019.
Data set:
Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey 2013
Hearing Care Services and Health Care Costs
8/17/2020Your footer text comes here
24
Question: How does hearing care service utilization affect health care utilization?
Objective: to determine how using hearing care services among those with hearing aids impacts the total cost of care and by service type compared to those who do not use hearing care services.
Hearing Care Services and Health Care Costs
8/17/2020Your footer text comes here
25
Methods: propensity score matching using a one-to-one, nearest neighbor matching approach without replacement to create comparable groups.
Matched on: age, gender, race, education, income, # of chronic conditions, # of activities of daily living, presence of helper, self-reported trouble hearing
Hearing Care Services and Health Care Costs
8/17/2020
26
Hearing Care Services and Health Care Costs
• Older adults with hearing aids using hearing care services had total Medicare spending $2,513 less than those who did not use hearing care services
• Post-acute care greatest difference
8/17/2020Willink A, Reed NS, Lin FR. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hearing Care Services: What Is It Worth to Medicare? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2019.
27
Conceptual Framework
8/17/2020 Reed AJHQ (under review)
Hearing Loss
Delirium
Confusion
CommunicationBreakdown
Satisfaction
Health Care Utilization
(hospitalizations, 30-day
readmission)Agitation/Frustration
Poor Treatment
Understanding
Sensory Deprivation
Exposure Immediate outcomes
Mediators Long-term Outcomes
Isolation
Length of Stay
28
Hypothesis
8/17/2020
Hearing loss is associated with reduced satisfaction withhealth care
29
Data Source
8/17/2020
Medicare Current Beneficiaries Survey 2015
Nationally representative sample of 12311 US MedicareBeneficiaries
Interview conducted survey
Reed et al. (under review)
30
Outcome
8/17/2020
Satisfaction with Care
“Please tell me how satisfied you have been with the following:The overall quality of the health care [you have] received [overthe past year/since (reference date)].”
[very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied] Recoded to binary
Reed et al. (under review)
31
Exposure
8/17/2020
Self Report Functional Hearing Trouble “Which statement best describes your hearing [with a
hearing aid]?” No Trouble A Little Trouble A Lot of Trouble
Reed et al. (under review)
32Unadjusted proportion dissatisfied with care by degree of hearing loss
8/17/2020
Functional Hearing Status
Variable TotalNo
TroubleA Little Trouble
A Lot of Trouble
Unweighted Sample 11,447 5915 4667 865Weighted Sample 48,599,593 26,061,904 19,324,911 3,212,778Dissatisfied with care 3.94% 3.10% 4.64% 6.52%
Reed et al. (under review)
33
8/17/2020
Variable Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P
Functional Hearing Loss
No trouble REFA little trouble 1.468(1.060 – 2.029) 0.240 0.021A lot of trouble 1.737(1.150 – 2.623) 0.361 0.009
Adjusted for Usual place of care, age, sex, race, education, income, general health, functional limitations
Reed et al. (under review)
Adjusted odds ratios of dissatisfaction with care by degree of hearing loss
34Pilot: Objective Hearing Measures - Satisfaction
8/17/2020
Hypothesis : Objectively measured hearing is associated with reducedsatisfaction with quality of care
Reed et al., 2019 JAGS
35
Methods
8/17/2020
Data Source:
Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study Visit 5 (2013) Hearing Loss pilot (Washington County) 256 participants aged 67-89 years (all white)
Outcome:
“Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of care you received fromyour healthcare providers over the past 12 months?” less than optimally satisfied (somewhat satisfied, somewhat
dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied) vs optimally satisfied (very satisfied)
Reed et al., 2019 JAGS
36
Methods
8/17/2020
Exposure:
Pure-tone audiometry 4-frequency pure-tone average (i.e., speech range) Continuous Categorical (normal, mild, moderate or greater)
Analysis:
Logistic regression Adjusted for age, sex, cognition (global score), comorbidities count
(diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, asthma, cancer, stroke,and hospital stay)
Reed et al., 2019 JAGS
37The probability of being less than optimally satisfied by hearing loss (HL) for 70-, 75-, and 80-year-old individuals.
8/17/2020
75-year-old participant: every 10 dB increase in hearing loss, theodds of being less satisfied increased 0.94 (95% CI:0.74-1.20).
85-year-old: for every 10 dB increase in hearing loss, the odds ofbeing less satisfied increased 1.33 (95% CI:0.96-1. 83)
Reed et al., 2019 JAGS
38
MCBS – Delay of Care
8/17/2020 Shukla et al. 2018 AJHQ; IOM 2001; Cohen et al. (2017) JAGS
Help-Seeking
OR of Knowingly Delaying Care [Reference = no HL] A Little Trouble Hearing: 1.61 [1.33-1.95] A Lot of Trouble Hearing: 2.01 [1.44-2.80]
Reason for delay for ‘A lot of trouble’ group Trouble getting to Dr: 2.3% Insurance acceptance: 0% Schedule conflict: 6.5% Thought Dr couldn’t do much: 19.82% Didn’t think it was serious: 27.38%
39
MCBS – Delay of Care
8/17/2020 Shukla et al. 2018 AJHQ; IOM 2001; Cohen et al. (2017) JAGS
Help-Seeking
Why would hearing loss be related to help-seeking behavior? Previous experiences with health care are reflected and
considered in future actions Consider an example of a person with hearing loss
repeatedly having a poor experience due tocommunication breakdown from hearing loss This individual may be less likely to seek care in the
future
40
MCBS - Accompaniment
8/17/2020 Shukla et al. 2018 AJHQ; IOM 2001; Cohen et al. (2017) JAGS
Accompaniment
OR of Accompaniment [Reference = no sensory impairment] Hearing Loss (HL) Alone: 1.04 [0.84-1.29] Vision Loss (VL) Alone: 2.14 [1.61-2.85] Dual Sensory (DSI): 2.70 [1.55-4.72]
Reason for accompaniment HL v. VL Persons with HL report communication issues at higher
proportions Take notes: HL (55.4%)v. VL (38.2%) Explain instructions: HL (47.7%)v. VL (36.8%) Transportation: HL (60.5%)v. VL (80.5%)
41
8/17/2020 Reed et al. (under review)
Help-Seeking Behavior by Hearing Status
Functional Hearing Status
Unadjusted Model Adjusted with Socio-demographics
Adjusted with Socio-demographics & Health Determinants
Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio
(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P
Patient will do anything to avoid seeing the doctorNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.91 (0.84 – 0.99) 0.04 0.03 1.05 (0.96 – 1.14) 0.05 0.29 1.01 (0.92 – 1.10) 0.05 0.86
A lot of trouble 1.49 (1.28 – 1.73) 0.11 <0.01 1.54 (1.32 – 1.80) 0.12 <0.01 1.41 (1.20 – 1.65) 0.12 <0.01
42
8/17/2020 Reed et al. (under review)
Help-Seeking Behavior by Hearing Status
Functional Hearing Status
Unadjusted Model Adjusted with Socio-demographics
Adjusted with Socio-demographics & Health Determinants
Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio
(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P
Patient will do anything to avoid seeing the doctorNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.91 (0.84 – 0.99) 0.04 0.03 1.05 (0.96 – 1.14) 0.05 0.29 1.01 (0.92 – 1.10) 0.05 0.86
A lot of trouble 1.49 (1.28 – 1.73) 0.11 <0.01 1.54 (1.32 – 1.80) 0.12 <0.01 1.41 (1.20 – 1.65) 0.12 <0.01
Patient will see the doctor as soon as he/she feels badNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.81 (0.75 – 0.87) 0.03 <0.01 0.87 (0.80 – 0.94) 0.03 <0.01 0.85 (0.77 – 0.94) 0.043 <0.01
A lot of trouble 0.76 (0.66 – 0.89) 0.06 <0.01 0.76 (0.65 – 0.89) 0.06 <0.01 0.68 (0.56 – 0.84) 0.071 <0.01
43
8/17/2020 Reed et al. (under review)
Help-Seeking Behavior by Hearing Status
Functional Hearing Status
Unadjusted Model Adjusted with Socio-demographics
Adjusted with Socio-demographics & Health Determinants
Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio
(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P
Patient will do anything to avoid seeing the doctorNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.91 (0.84 – 0.99) 0.04 0.03 1.05 (0.96 – 1.14) 0.05 0.29 1.01 (0.92 – 1.10) 0.05 0.86
A lot of trouble 1.49 (1.28 – 1.73) 0.11 <0.01 1.54 (1.32 – 1.80) 0.12 <0.01 1.41 (1.20 – 1.65) 0.12 <0.01
Patient will see the doctor as soon as he/she feels badNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.81 (0.75 – 0.87) 0.03 <0.01 0.87 (0.80 – 0.94) 0.03 <0.01 0.85 (0.77 – 0.94) 0.043 <0.01
A lot of trouble 0.76 (0.66 – 0.89) 0.06 <0.01 0.76 (0.65 – 0.89) 0.06 <0.01 0.68 (0.56 – 0.84) 0.071 <0.01
Patient worries about health more than others their ageNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.84 (0.77 – 0.91) 0.04 <0.01 1.25 (0.96 – 1.14) 0.06 <0.01 0.98 (0.88 – 1.10) 0.05 0.78
A lot of trouble 1.09 (0.92 – 1.28) 0.09 0.33 1.54 (1.32 – 1.80) 0.15 <0.01 0.90 (0.74 – 1.10) 0.09 0.31
44
8/17/2020 Reed et al. (under review)
Help-Seeking Behavior by Hearing Status
Functional Hearing Status
Unadjusted Model Adjusted with Socio-demographics
Adjusted with Socio-demographics & Health Determinants
Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio
(95% CI) SE P Odds Ratio(95% CI) SE P
Patient will do anything to avoid seeing the doctorNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.91 (0.84 – 0.99) 0.04 0.03 1.05 (0.96 – 1.14) 0.05 0.29 1.01 (0.92 – 1.10) 0.05 0.86
A lot of trouble 1.49 (1.28 – 1.73) 0.11 <0.01 1.54 (1.32 – 1.80) 0.12 <0.01 1.41 (1.20 – 1.65) 0.12 <0.01
Patient will see the doctor as soon as he/she feels badNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.81 (0.75 – 0.87) 0.03 <0.01 0.87 (0.80 – 0.94) 0.03 <0.01 0.85 (0.77 – 0.94) 0.043 <0.01
A lot of trouble 0.76 (0.66 – 0.89) 0.06 <0.01 0.76 (0.65 – 0.89) 0.06 <0.01 0.68 (0.56 – 0.84) 0.071 <0.01
Patient worries about health more than others their ageNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 0.84 (0.77 – 0.91) 0.04 <0.01 1.25 (0.96 – 1.14) 0.06 <0.01 0.98 (0.88 – 1.10) 0.05 0.78
A lot of trouble 1.09 (0.92 – 1.28) 0.09 0.33 1.54 (1.32 – 1.80) 0.15 <0.01 0.90 (0.74 – 1.10) 0.09 0.31
Patient keeps it to him/herself when he/she is sickNo trouble REF REF REF
A little trouble 1.07 (0.99 – 1.16) 0.04 0.07 1.16 (1.07 – 1.25) 0.05 <0.01 1.11 (1.03 – 1.20) 0.05 <0.01
A lot of trouble 1.30 (1.13 – 1.51) 0.10 <0.01 1.33 (1.15 – 1.54) 0.10 <0.01 1.22 (1.04 – 1.42) 0.10 0.01
45
Perceptions of Care
8/17/2020
In the MCBS 2016 dataset, persons with hearing loss were:
More likely to Agree with: “Doctor often seems to be in a hurry” “The doctor often does not explain medical problems to you” “The doctor acts as though s/he is doing you a favor by talking to you”
More likely to Disagree with: “The doctor answers all your questions” “The doctor tells you all you want to know about condition/treatment” “The doctor has a complete understanding of the things wrong with you”
Reed et al. (under review)
46
Summary
8/17/2020
Hearing loss is associated with higher odds of being less than optimallysatisfied and/or dissatisfied with health care among older adults
Limitations: Cross-sectional MCBS Self-report hearing loss Limited hearing aid data
ARIC Small sample size homogenous population
Reed et al. 2019 JAMA-Otolaryngology
47
Conceptual Framework
8/17/2020 Reed AJHQ (under review)
Hearing Loss
Delirium
Confusion
CommunicationBreakdown
Satisfaction
Health Care Utilization
(hospitalizations, 30-day
readmission)Agitation/Frustration
Poor Treatment
Understanding
Sensory Deprivation
Exposure Immediate outcomes
Mediators Long-term Outcomes
Isolation
Length of Stay
48
Hearing Loss and Delirium
8/17/2020
Incidence rates of delirium among older adults with hearing loss (36-61.7%)higher compared to those without hearing loss (12-38.2%)
Mediation: Sensory-Deprivation Isolation Removal of Hearing Aids Treated as inventory
49
Translating Research Into Action
8/17/2020
50Hearing Loss Screening and Intervention in Hospital Setting
8/17/2020
No universal program to identify and intervene on hearing loss in adults inthe hospital system
Many calls for adult hearing screening but most have ignored basicprinciples of implementation science
Reed et al., (in-prep)
51
Implementation Science: Translating evidence into sustainable practice
Current state of hearing screenings for adults:
Run by foreign units (audiology) Single person screening all
Generally from outside Purpose is generally for referral for formal hearing care
Indirect implications Use specialized equipment
Training, time Label patient (puts responsibility on patient) Lack training programs Lack of “buy-in”
Hearing Loss Screening and Intervention in Hospital Setting
Reed et al. (in prep); Pronovost et al. JAMA 2017
52
Implementation Science
8/17/2020 Pronovost et al. JAMA 2017
53
Implementation Science
8/17/2020 Wick et al. J AM COLL SURG 2015
54
Engaging Health Care to Address Communication Environments
ENHANCE
8/17/2020
55
ENHANCE - Workflow
8/17/2020
No Hearing Loss
Mild Hearing Loss
Admission:Screen for
hearing loss using self-
report as part of common procedures
≥Moderate Hearing Loss
No InterventionCommunicatio
n Signage
Signage + Amplifier
Reed et al., (in-prep)
56Staff Training Component
Wallhagen and Reed, J Gero Nurs 2018
57
Identification Signage
Reed et al., (in-prep)
58
Amplification Products
Reed et al., (in-prep)
59Sustainable Hearing Screening and Intervention Solution
8/17/2020
Imbedded within current workflow Universal training end education sessions
Improve fidelity and “buy-in” Purpose is to improve patient-provider communication
Direct implications for staff Onus of communication placed on staff/providers Self-report hearing loss
Minimizes training, time
Reed et al., (in-prep)
60
ENHANCE
8/17/2020
From Jan –Mar 2018: Feasibility Trial
Med A and Med B (general medicine) at Bayview Hospital (CommunityHospital)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
61
Engaging Key Figures
8/17/2020
1 meeting with Armstrong Institute 2 meetings with ADA compliance office 3 meetings with Aesthetics Committee 3 meetings with Bayview Med A+B administration 5 meetings with Med A +B clinical nurse specialists, charge nurses
Champion: Clinical nurse specialist 6 lunch and learn events with staff (3 each Med A and B)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
62
Educating Staff
8/17/2020
6 lunch and learn prior to kick off Materials were printed and distributed to all staff and providers 8 lunch and learn during program (~15-20 minutes)
4 in 2nd week 4 in 4th week
16 check-in huddles (~1-2 minutes) 4 in 1st week 4 in 3rd week 4 in 6th week 4 in 8th week
Amounts to 8 formal education opportunities per shift over period
Reed et al., (in-prep)
63
Evaluating ENHANCE
8/17/2020
502 screenings captured (77.9% of all admitted per charge nurse numberreports)
41 indicated form not completed (15 unresponsive patient, 14 refusals, 12time constraints)
543/644 for 84.3% capture rate
Reed et al., (in-prep)
64
Process Evaluation
8/17/2020
Screened No HL(n=264)
Mild HL(n=157)
≥ Moderate HL (n=81)
Overall(n=502)
Device Distributed 0/264 (0%) 7/157 (04.4%)
75/81 (91.4%)
82/502 (16.3%)
Discharge Completed 121/264 (45.8%)
114/157 (72.6%)
71/81 (87.6%)
306 (60.9%)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
65
Previous communication troubles?
8/17/2020
Screened No HL(n=264)
Mild HL(n=157)
≥ Moderate HL (n=81)
Overall(n=502)
Never 23 (19.0%) 17 (14.9%) 3 (04.2%) 43 (14.1%)Sometimes 71 (58.6%) 42 (36.8%) 11 (15.5%) 124 (40.5%)
Most of the time 21(17.3%) 46 (40.4%) 41 (57.7%) 108 (35.3%)Always 6 (04.9%) 9 (07.9%) 16 (22.5%) 31 (10.1%)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
66Was hearing an issue previously in communication?
8/17/2020
Screened No HL(n=264)
Mild HL(n=157)
≥ Moderate HL (n=81)
Overall(n=502)
No 116 (95.8%)
82(71.9%)
19(26.8%)
217 (70.9%)
Yes5 (04.1%)
32(28.1%)
52(73.2%)
89 (29.7%)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
67Improved communication during current stay?
8/17/2020
Screened No HL(n=264)
Mild HL(n=157)
≥ Moderate HL (n=81)
Overall(n=502)
No difference 21 (17.4%) 3 (02.6%) 4 (05.6%) 28 (09.2%)Slight Improvement 36 (29.8%) 21 (18.4%) 9 (12.7%) 66 (21.6%)
Improved A little 46 (38.0%) 58 (50.9%) 17 (23.9%) 121 (39.5%)Improved A lot 18 (14.9%) 32 (28.1%) 41 (57.7%) 91 (23.7%)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
68Satisfied with communication during current stay?
8/17/2020
Screened No HL(n=264)
Mild HL(n=157)
≥ Moderate HL (n=81)
Overall(n=502)
Not Satisfied 11 (9.09%) 5 (04.4%) 1 (01.4%) 17 (5.6%)
Somewhat Satisfied 12 (9.92%) 13 (11.4%) 4 (05.6%) 29 (9.5%)
Mostly Satisfied 18 (14.9%) 15 (13.2%) 7 (09.9%) 40 (13.1%)
Completely Satisfied 80 (66.1%) 81 (71.1%) 59 (83.1%) 220 (71.9%)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
69See communication program used in other healthcare settings?
8/17/2020
Screened No HL(n=264)
Mild HL(n=157)
≥ Moderate HL (n=81)
Overall(n=502)
No 21 (17.4%) 6 (05.3%) 1 (01.4%) 28 (09.2%)Yes 92 (76.0%) 103 (90.4%) 67 (94.4%) 262 (85.6%)
Yes, with changes 8 (06.6%) 5 (04.4%) 3 (04.2%) 16 (5.2%)
Reed et al., (in-prep)
70
Provider Perspective
8/17/2020
Survey:
Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strong Disagree with the followingstatements:
71
Provider Perspective
8/17/2020
Strongly Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Negatively Disrupted Workflow 0 0 3 8 7Took Too Long 0 1 13 4 0
Made it easier to communicate with patients 10 8 0 0 0During program, found I was repeating myself less often 6 6 9 2 1
During the program I found that patients were less confused when discussing care 3 10 5 0 0
I found the program saved me time by making communication easier 7 9 2 0 0
I found myself using best-practice communication more often regardless of whether patients had hearing loss 3 11 3 1 0
Reed et al., (in-prep)
72
Provider Perspective
8/17/2020
Strongly Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Felt Patients appreciated the program 6 11 1 0 0I felt like I needed more training to implement the
program 0 2 2 13 1
I would like to see this program implemented throughout the system 8 7 3 0 0
The hearing screening and intervention program has value in the medical setting 8 8 9 1 0
Reed et al., (in-prep)
73
Provider Perspective
8/17/2020
“Best intervention ever! I normally have a loud voice andsome people still can't hear me, but once they put theheadphones on, then they can hear. It's nice not loosingyour voice :)”
“Such a wonderful program for patients. This has come inhandy and patients truly benefit from this. This has mademy job much easier! Thank you!”
74
Summary
8/17/2020
ENHANCE was well received in an inpatient setting and may improvecommunication perceptions among inpatients
Limitations: Unknown if program functions without third party influence Lack of process evaluation More trials are required
75
Hearing in Health Care
8/17/2020
Universal Adult Hearing Screening: Move towards acceptance Educating the rest of the medical community Future for objective measures
Professionals in the context of OTC (in the United States): Raise awareness Potential for knowledge disbursement
HCAHPS (the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providersand Systems): Medicare reimbursement in the American Health Care System Hospital Incentive
76
Thanks!
8/17/2020