Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:08:19.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An audit of the cochlear implant service in Manchester

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

D. J. Mawman ,
J. D. Edwards ,
E. C. Giles ,
D. Y. Aplin ,
M. O'Driscoll ,
T. J. Woolford  and
R. T. Ramsden
D. J. Mawman*
Affiliation:
Manchester Cochlear Implant Programme, The University, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
J. D. Edwards
Affiliation:
Manchester Cochlear Implant Programme, The University, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
E. C. Giles
Affiliation:
Manchester Cochlear Implant Programme, The University, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
D. Y. Aplin
Affiliation:
Manchester Cochlear Implant Programme, The University, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
M. O'Driscoll
Affiliation:
Manchester Cochlear Implant Programme, The University, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
T. J. Woolford
Affiliation:
Manchester and the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
R. T. Ramsden
Affiliation:
Manchester and the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Deborah Mawman, Centre for Audiology, Education of the Deaf and Speech Pathology, The University, Manchester M13 9PL Fax: 0161 276 8511
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The adult cochlear implant programme in Manchester was established in 1988 and the evaluation of the cochlear implant service involved the first 58 implants users (mean age = 51.65 years, range 19–75 years). Questionnaires were sent to implant users and their partners to evaluate the service with regard to provision of information, clinical care during in-patient assessments, waiting times, operation for cochlear implant and postoperative rehabilitation. The results show that the majority of patients (78 per cent) felt that the implant gave them as much or more benefit than expected. Areas identified for improvements include provision of more written information about cochlear implants; reduction in waiting times for first appointments; more information about the surgical risks and more instruction about home auditory training exercises for family and friends.

As a consequence of the audit results the clinical practice and service provision for cochlear implantation in Manchester has been modified.

Keywords

Cochlear implantPatient care planning
Type
Audit Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 110 , Issue 11 , November 1996 , pp. 1046 - 1054
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium, Melbourne, Australia 24–28 October 1994.

References

Aplin, D. Y. (1993) Psychological assessment of multi-channel cochlear implant patients. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 107: 298–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berliner, K. (1985) Selection of cochlear implant patients. In Cochlear Implants (Schindler, R. A., Merzenich, M. M., eds.), Raven Press, New York; pp 395–402.Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, G. M., Pyman, B. C., Bailey, Q. E. (1979) The surgery for multiple electrode cochlear implantation. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 93: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowell, R. (1995) Speech perception for adults using cochlear implants. In Profound Deafness and Speech Communication. (Plant, G., Spens, K. E., eds.) Whurr, London, pp 262–284.Google Scholar
Giles, E. C., Ramsden, R. T., Saeed, S. R., Aplin, D. Y., Boyd, P. J., O'Driscoll, M., Norman, G. S., Mawman, D. J., Tyszkiewicz, E., Smith, P. (1994) The Manchester cochlear implant programme 1988–1994. Paper presented at International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium,Melbourne,1994.Google Scholar
King, A. B., Martin, M. C. (1986) Audiological assessment in the selection of cochlear implant candidates. British Journal of Audiology 20: 19–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, S. (1991) Speech processor fitting for cochlear implants. In Cochlear Implants: A Practical Guide (Cooper, H., ed.), Whurr, London, pp 201–218.Google Scholar
Rothera, M., Conway, M., Brightwell, A., Graham, J. (1986) Evaluation of patients for cochlear implant by promontory stimulation. British Journal of Audiology 20: 25–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Summerfield, A. Q., Marshall, D. H. (1995) Cochlear implantation in the UK 1990–1994: Evaluation of the national cochlear implant programme. Final Report, 1994. Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research. Nottingham.Google Scholar
Woolford, T. J., Roberts, G. R., Hartley, C., Ramsden, R. T. (1994) Aetiology of hearing loss and cochlear computerised tomography findings in pre-implant assessment. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology (Suppl 166) 194: 201–106.Google Scholar