Patient management for cochlear implant recipients in audiology departments: A practice review

• Published in: Cochlear implants international Vol. 17; no. 3; pp. 123 - 128
• Main Authors: Lorens, Artur, Skarzynski, Henryk, Rivas, Adriana, Rivas, José Antonio, Zimmermann, Kim, Parnes, Lorne, Lassaletta, Luis, Gavilán, Javiér, Bodt, Marc De, van de Heyning, Paul, Martin, Jane, Raine, Christopher H., Rajeswaran, Ranjith, Kameswaran, Mohan, Manoj, Manikoth, Pulibalathingal, Sasidharan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis 03-05-2016
• Subjects: Aftercare - methods; Aftercare - statistics & numerical data; Audiology - organization & administration; Clinic; Cochlear implant; Cochlear Implantation; Cochlear Implants; Efficiency, Organizational; Humans; Lean; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors; Time-study analysis; Workflow; Clinic; Cochlear implant; Time-study analysis; Workflow; Lean
• ISSN: 1467-0100; 1754-7628
• DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2015.1115188

Objectives: To determine and evaluate the time clinics needed to complete the sub-processes involved in the first-fitting and follow-up fitting of people with a cochlear implant.
Methods: Eight HEARRING clinics completed a questionnaire recording how long it took to complete the sub-processes involved in first-fitting and follow-up fitting cochlear implant recipients. The mean times of clinics and procedures were then compared.
Results: Questionnaires on 77 patients were completed. Clinics varied widely on time spent on each sub-process in both first- and follow-up fittings. Total first-fitting times were similar across clinics. Follow-up fitting times varied more across clinics although this may have been due to differences in questionnaire interpretation.
Discussion: If a patient management plan can help increasingly busy cochlear implant clinics provide high-quality care more efficiently, essential first steps are determining which procedures are generally performed and how long their performance takes. Until reliable data are gathered, constructing a patient management plan or reaping the potential benefits of its use will remain elusive; clinics will have to find what solutions they can to meet rising workload demands.
Conclusion: The variation in time spent on each sub-process may suggest that some clinics have more efficient workflow procedures. Compiling a best practice for each process could be instrumental in creating a professional process management plan that would increase efficiency without sacrificing quality of care.