1 / 27

Integrated Medical Care for Children who are Deaf/HOH

Integrated Medical Care for Children who are Deaf/HOH. Quality Control Assessment. Ellis Arjmand, MD, PhD Susan Wiley, MD Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center University of Cincinnati. Objectives.

gudrun
Download Presentation

Integrated Medical Care for Children who are Deaf/HOH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Integrated Medical Care for Children who are Deaf/HOH Quality Control Assessment Ellis Arjmand, MD, PhD Susan Wiley, MD Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center University of Cincinnati

  2. Objectives • Present a rationale for interdisciplinary medical evaluations for children who are deaf/hard of hearing • Describe an integrated model of medical care for children who are deaf/hard of hearing • Present preliminary clinical outcomes seen in this setting

  3. Premise Behind Clinic Model • Little consensus behind standardized medical evaluation (no evidence based guidelines) • Variable approach to work-up • Evaluation protocol often more standardized for children who are considering a cochlear implant • Etiology of hearing loss often unknown • Attempt to standardize care protocols • Provide quality of care to all children who are deaf/hoh

  4. Pre-clinic Data • CCHMC otology and audiology serve approximately 150 newly identified children with hearing loss annually • This includes approximately 50 cochlear implant evaluations per year • Prior to the clinic model, many children had long waits for appointments with subspecialists such as ophthalmology, neurology, developmental pediatrics, genetics • Estimate of clinician time possible based on baseline data

  5. Clinic Needs • Service coordination (scheduling) • Buy-in from specialists (ophthalmology, genetics, etc) • Standardized evaluation protocol • Comprehensive evaluations for all children irrespective of degree and type of hearing loss • Improved access for families/patients • Outcome data/QA • Support from institution (start-up costs)

  6. Clinic Participants • Clinic coordination • One 0.5 FTE scheduler • Schedules appointments, collects reports from evaluations • Medical Sub-specialists • Pediatric Otologists • Genetics • Ophthalmology • Radiology/Laboratory Medicine • Developmental Pediatrics (as needed) • Neurology (as needed)

  7. Clinic Participants • Allied Health Specialists • Pediatric Audiologists • Aural Rehabilitation Specialists • Speech/Language Pathologists • Social Work • Community Collaboration • Part C (Regional Infant Hearing Programs) • Part B (Local school programs)

  8. Entry Criteria • Any child with a newly identified hearing loss irrespective of degree, side, or type of hearing loss • Any child with an identified hearing loss who needed collaborative approach to care (often at the discretion of ENT and Audiology)

  9. Referral System • Referral by community physicians, audiologists, or otolaryngologists • Scheduler contacts families to confirm demographic information, contact information • Nurse intake by telephone • Pediatric otologist reviews intake information, develops treatment plan • Scheduler contact families to arrange appointments

  10. Day of Appointments • Goal: Appointments range from occurring from a 1-2 day period to within a 2 week period • Results shared with families by specialists • Brief summary of findings from specialist faxed to managing otologist

  11. Clinic Collaboration • Follow-up appointment with otologist after evaluations are complete • Summary letter sent to family, other providers, and referring physician • Format for discussion among providers at weekly team meetings

  12. Clinic Data • Random selection of 100 children referred to the HDRC clinic between July 2005 and December 2006 • 18 were evaluated for a cochlear implant (CI) • 82 were referred for hearing loss in general • Of the 100, 10 did not complete the evaluation process (none were CI candidates)

  13. Time to Completion of Appointments Among patients who completed the full evaluation process (n=90) *CI group calculated based on date of surgery, thus increasing the length of time through the process.

  14. Time from Identification to Amplification Among those receiving amplification (n=60)

  15. 100 children Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss N=38 Moderately Severe or Worse Hearing Loss N=41 Unilateral Hearing Loss N=21 Cochlear Implant Evaluation N=18 Left N=15 Right N=6 Clinic Data Median Age 5 ½ yrs at evaluation Range 1 mo – 16 yrs 94 SNHL 4 mixed 1 conductive 1 auditory neuropathy

  16. Etiology of Hearing Loss

  17. Etiology of Hearing Loss

  18. Medical Evaluations Suggested in Literature • All children with hearing loss should see the following 3 medical specialists: • Pediatric Otolaryngology • Ophthalmology • Genetics

  19. Pediatric Otolaryngology • 100% (by definition) saw a pediatric otolaryngologist • 76%with GJB2 testing (51/67 with indications) • Not indicated in 33 (unilateral, known syndrome, CMV, meningitis, CMV) • 51 subjects completed GJB2 testing • 6 positive (8% of those tested) • 3 indeterminate • CT results • 76 % completed • 42% of those tested had findings (32/76 patients)

  20. Ophthalmology • 46% of entire group completed an eye exam • 54% of those with an eye exam (25/46 patients) had a significant finding • 18 with glasses • 7 with more significant vision problems • RP, coloboma, etc. • 47% of those with mild or unilateral HI completed an eye exam (28/59) • 53% (15/28) with findings

  21. Genetics • 21 completed a genetics evaluation other than for genetic testing for hearing loss • 9 had a genetic syndrome, 1 was not the cause of the hearing loss. • Beckwith Wiedemann and connexin • CHARGE • CHARGE and XXY • Partial trisomy 3q and congenital CMV • Miller Syndrome • Campomelic dysplasia (2 sibs) • Usher Syndrome (2 patients)

  22. Developmental Pediatrics • 58 patients completed a neurodevelopmental evaluation • 4 additional charts indicated issues, 2 did not keep appointment, 2 were not referred • 40 patients had findings which could impact education/development • 40% among entire population (n=100) • 69% among those referred and evaluated (n=58)

  23. Developmental Pediatrics

  24. Therapy Appointments • 52 patients completed a speech/language evaluation • 63% of those evaluated (33/52 patients) had an identified delay/issue requiring therapy • 42 patients completed an aural rehabilitation evaluation • 55% of those evaluated (23/42 patients) had an identified delay/issue requiring therapy

  25. Unilateral/Mild HL 59 subjects had unilateral/mild hearing loss • 25 subjects (42%) saw DBP • 68% had findings (17/25) • 23 subjects (39%) saw SLP, 3 missing reports • 60% were suggested intervention (14/23) • 14 subjects (24%) saw AR, 1 missing report • 35% were suggested intervention (5/14)

  26. Implications • Quality Improvement data to identify appropriate benchmarks or goals of care • Information to support the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of SNHL

More Related