Kara's Blog

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Week 11, Fall 2007

This week I saw a recruit who I had recently seen for a hearing evaluation. He had normal hearing to mild hearing loss in the low-frequencies, and a sharply sloping drop, beginning at 2000Hz, to a severe SNHL Hz in the high-frequencies. His hearing and speech discrimination was substantially worse in the left ear, so my supervisor and I advised him to try a monaural fitting first. We ordered an Oticon Delta 4000 for his right ear.

When his hearing aid arrived, I programmed it according to the manufacturer's first fitting for his audiogram. When the recruit came for his visit, I found his REUR and used it to tailor his fitting. When I asked the recruit how his hearing aid sounded, he reported that they didn't seem to be providing enough gain. I boosted gain in the middle- and high-frequencies, and the client seemed to be pleased with the increases. Additionally, he did not report any tolerance problems.

I also completed some testing in the soundfield to verify hearing aid benefit. The client's word discrimination and warbled pure tone minimum response levels improved substantially when unaided results were compared with aided results. The recruit commented on the improvement in audibility and "sharpness" that his hearing aid provided. The client was very happy about the fitting and was receptive to new information about maintenance, use, and his warranty.

The client was scheduled to return in a week and a half following Thanksgiving Break.

The following article, Recognition of Hearing Aid Orientation Content by First-Time Users, discusses one of the roadblocks to successful hearing aid fittings ... retention of information. Stay tuned for more info.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17870910&site=ehost-live

Monday, November 26, 2007

Week 10, Fall 2007

I only saw a hearing conservation client on Tuesday, and there were no-shows :-( on Thursday. Otoscopy, tympanometry, and PT testing were normal. Because I've seen so many hearing conservation clients, I chose an article that offered some excellent information about noise exposure and hearing loss prevention.

Hearing Health & Care: The Need for Improved Hearing Loss Prevention and Hearing Conservation Practices included a great deal of prevalence and incidence statistics published prior to 2006. (It's fairly recent data, and it's a great source if you need statistics about NIHL, particularly veteran info.) One signficant statistic made reference to soldiers returning from deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq who were referred audiologists because they were exposed to acute acoustic blasts. The authors noted that 72% of those soldiers had hearing loss. Additionally, data from 2005 indicated that hearing-related compensation benefits paid to veterans exceeds 1 billion dollars each year. Thus, there is a great need for our services and for hearing conservation programs.

The authors included a chart that could be used as a counseling tool. It lists average decibel levels of common sound sources in a horizontal bar graph. It is easy to read, and it is coupled with information from OSHA. For example, maximum exposure time for unprotected ears is an average of 85 dB over an 8-hour work day. "For every 5 dB increase in noise, the exposure time should be cut in half to minimize damage." (e.g.: 90 dB = 4 hours) According to this data, common household items, like lawn mowers and leaf blowers, can only be used for 2 hours and 15 minutes, respectively, before damage occurs. Geez!!! I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I didn't realize that!

The article also offers an excellent chart that lists common ototoxic drugs. It is a good quick reference for clinical use.

All and all, the article offers a great deal of information about many types of hearing conservation, including adult and pediatric. It's a great resource -- check it out!

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19675880&site=ehost-live

Week 9, Fall 2007

This week I saw a 6 year, 5 month old child who had been evaluated at a speech diagnostic. The child had a normal birth and developed normally aside from phonological delays. He had a history of OM, but had not recently experienced problems with his ME.

I had seen him prior to his current visit. During the previous visit, normal hearing and normal (Type A) tympanograms were found. The child responded at 500, 1000, 2000, & 4000 Hz at 0 dB HL with insert earphones. A threshold search was not performed below 0 dB HL. The child had normal SRTs, which were in good agreement with the PTA, and excellent WR abilities at 30 dB SL bilaterally, as well. During his initial visit, the speech supervisor asked if the child could be evaluated for an APD. She noted that speech testing raised concerns about normal auditory processing. Because the child's hearing was normal and because he was cooperative during PT and speech testing, my supervisor scheduled him approved a follow-up appointment for APD testing.

At the follow-up appointment, the child's demeanor was curious and cooperative. He asked many questions and responded appropriately to our questions during interactions prior to testing. He responded in an age-appropriate manner by using various sentence types, including complex sentences, with appropriate syntax and vocabulary. His questions and responses were pragmatically appropriate, he displayed appropriate turn-taking, and used humor and imagination during play. His mother stated that the child's teachers had complained that he often didn't follow directions in class and that he seemed to more inattentive than the other children in his class. The child's mother also noted that he doesn't listen to directions at home sometimes as well; however, she didn't feel as though he didn't understand her.

When testing commenced, the SCAN-C and the SSW were administered. I gave the child a brief explanation of what he could expect before I began the tests. He seemed to understand my explanation and instructions. He was seated quietly when the test began, and he was able to do the practice items on the SCAN-C. On the filtered words, auditory figure-ground, and competing words subtests, the child scored in the normal to 1 standard deviation below the norm range. His scores on the competing sentences subtest were lower than the other subtests, but they were still not in the disordered range. The child's attention also seemed to be waning during the final subtest.

The SSW revealed normal results; however, only half of the test was scored because the child became impatient during the end of the test. In fact, when the recorded test played the carrier phrase "Are you ready," the child responded by yelling "NOOO!," which caused him to miss some of the test items.

Results were discussed with the parent, and she stated that she felt that unrealistic teacher expectations had pressured her into bringing her child for testing. She explained that her child's school has very high standards, and she believes that children, like her son, who are average acheivers and have difficulty staying on task, are not looked fondly upon and are perceived as disordered. We assured her that our results indicated that he was not, in fact, disordered. My supervisor stated that maturity and many other factors may contribute to her child's behavior in school, and we recommended that she bring her child back to our clinic in one year in order to repeat testing and monitor any changes in her son's APD test results. We also recommended that, if behavioral problems in school do not improve, the administration at the child's school should be contacted. Because the child's mother was concerned about the child's ability to attend to message, we stated that additional evaluations, such as with a psychologist, could be scheduled.

The following article, Can We Differentially Diagnose an ADD without Hyperactivity from a CAPD?, addresses an issue that is a core concern of my client's mother ... differentiating ADD from APD. The article describes a case study about a boy named Corey. Corey, like the child I saw, was having difficulty in school. He was not staying on task, he was asking his teachers to repeat instructions, he was acting out, and he had a history of phonological delays and OM. Corey underwent a full psychoeducational.

During an interview with Corey, the investigators found that he had skewed social competence. Specifically, he blamed others for his difficulties and didn't understand why he kept getting in trouble and getting rejected from same-age friends. Both a speech-language pathologist's and a school psychologist's interpretations of results were given. Both professionals cited similiar difficulties, such as inability to maintain attention, difficulty processing complex sentences and directions, and weak figure-ground scores. However, the two professionals suggested two different diagnoses: APD and ADD. This article provides a real-world example of a child who may not fall neatly into a diagnostic category. It emphasizes that APD and ADD can be mistaken for each other and can also occur concurrently. Significantly, the authors also advised multiple case histories and interviews with the children in order to arrive at more accurate diagnoses.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9501134652&site=ehost-live

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Week 8, Fall 2007

This week I saw many hearing conservation clients. Generally, they had normal hearing or mild to moderate HF HL. Normal (Type A) tympanograms were found. ART testing, speech testing, and OAEs were not performed due to supervisor requests and time constraints. Aside from unprotected occupational noise exposure and some noisy hobbies, I recorded no outstanding case history information. The most difficult part about seeing clients with normal or near-normal hearing who are exposed to occupational noise is imparting the importance of consistent hearing protection when exposed to noise. Many of the clients that I saw reported that wearing standard foam earplugs made it difficult to do their job properly. They stated that they would not be able to hear necessary communication or warnings if they were wearing hearing protection. Additionally, 2 of my clients were in their 20s & 30s and didn't feel as though they had been affected yet by noise. Even though clients claimed that they would begin or continue using hearing protection, I'm not sure if my counseling was effective or if they were just saying what they thought I wanted to hear.

The following article, Hearing Conservation: Carrot More Effective than Stick, addresses motivating hearing conservation employees to protect their hearing. The article lists 3 tips to motivate clients. They include the following: 1) "Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability," 2) "Demonstrating future risk," and 3) "Removing the barriers to wearing hearing protection." All tips would be applicable to the clients that I saw this week.

In addressing the first tip, dispelling the illusion of invulnerability, the authors recommend providing hearing conservation workers a copy of their annual audiogram along with a simple description of the results. In addition, using OAEs as a counseling tool to describe more subtle changes in hearing may also be effective. For the second tip, "demonstrating future risk," the authors suggest that younger workers talk with older workers who have endured noise-related HL. For the third tip, "removing the barriers to hearing protection," the authors recommend installing hearing protection dispensers for easy access or providing custom hearing protection to increase comfort and satisfaction. All of these suggestions could help improve our interactions with hearing conservation clients.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22124157&site=ehost-live

Monday, November 05, 2007

Week 7, Fall 2007