Auditory Implementation, Essay Example

Auditory Implementation is the Best Example of a Multidisciplinary Healthcare Process

Auditory Implementation is a surgery that involves the insertion of a cochlear implant inside. Cochlear implants comprise electronic devices with an electrode array and a current source. Once the devices are inserted into the cochlea, the current stimulates the remaining auditory nerve fibers to enable better hearing. Auditory Implementation is an approved modality that helps to treat hearing loss in individuals. The method was invented in the 1980s and has played a key role in improving the quality of life of those with hearing challenges. Initially, the implant was a single-channel device. However, advancements relating to the technology have resulted in multichannel cochlear implants that produce better results. Furthermore, technological developments over the past two decades have improved spoken word recognition, which aids the implant user. Engineering and technological advances have also changed the method used to determine cochlear implant candidacy. Initially, the treatment modality was only recommended for adults with post-lingual profound deafness. Today, cochlear implant candidacy does not rely on audiometric thresholds. The multiple advancements in auditory implantation have also changed how the process occurs. Auditory Implementation involves a series of processes and procedures that require expertise from several healthcare professionals. Hence, auditory implantation is the best example of multidisciplinary healthcare.

Determining implant candidacy is a crucial step in the auditory implantation process. The process begins with examining an individual’s demographic traits and lifestyle (This is incorrect statement unless you have an evidence) The auditory team must assess different factors, such as the family’s goals for the child, availability of resources, realistic expectations, and family history, to determine whether an individual is eligible for auditory implantation (Warner-Czyz et al., 2022, P. 268). The team then performs an audiological evaluation to establish the underlying diagnosis and prognosis contributing to hearing loss. The team at this point is Lee, the audiologist who examines key components such as the onset of the hearing loss, duration of use of hearing aid, current use of hearing aid, and etiology of hearing loss. Some causes of hearing loss include inconsistent use of hearing aid, atypical cochlear anatomy, genetic etiology, and poor postoperative outcomes among children.

Audiologic evaluation also includes an examination of residual hearing in the patient’s ear. Furthermore, speech recognition testing for children with hearing loss is necessary to enhance clinical decision-making. Testing for speech recognition is done by a speech pathologist. The clinician uses the pediatric minimum speech test battery to perform the test. Determining the appropriate candidate also involves the assessment of functional listening capabilities in patients (Todd et al., 2007). A functional listening assessment is performed to determine the meaning that a patient derives from detected sounds. The test can be done by professionals, including audiologists, speech-language pathologists, or early intervention specialists. Part of the process to determine candidacy for auditory implantation involves physical examination. In children, different specialists, including an otolaryngologist, a genetic counselor, a neurotologist, and a neuroradiologist, perform a physical examination to identify symptomatic features.

Other assessments that help to identify candidates for auditory implantation include language assessment, speech assessment, and genetic testing. As the professionals examine whether an individual is a candidate for auditory implantation, they must select the appropriate device for the patient. At this stage, the audiologist collaborates with a speech-language pathologist to examine the spectrum of communication options. The team also works with the individual’s parents or family to identify the appropriate hearing device. Auditory implantation involves the insertion of a cochlear implant in an individual’s ear with hearing problems. The procedure is an outpatient process that may be performed in a primary healthcare facility using general anesthesia (Karltorp et al., 2020). The patient must go for a checkup a few weeks later to enable the audiologist to activate and program the implant. The implant surgery takes about two hours.

General anesthesia is administered before the surgery. The surgeon creates an opening behind the ear to find a guide to the cochlea. The professional then inserts an internal processor between the bone and muscle. The individual then wears an external speech processor, which sends information to the internal processor. The surgeon then closes the opening behind the ear, and the patient goes to the recovery area for care and monitoring. Once they recover from anesthesia, they are discharged from the hospital. The patient experiences a change in their hearing capabilities right after the surgery. However, the programming of the implant takes place weeks later. This is required to ensure the incision heals completely. At home, the patient participates in ear care by carrying stitches and changing the dressings. The patient goes for a follow-up appointment to allow the surgeon to inspect the area and remove the stitches. The audiologist then waits another three weeks to activate and program the implant (Hall et al., 2019, p. 770). Nurses play a key role at every step of the assessment. The nurse must have an understanding of each patient’s needs and. culture. They also form an important part of the auditory implantation team.

The process of auditory implantation comprises multiple steps that begin with determining the implant candidacy and end with support from social workers and the family. The procedure, therefore, involves the participation of different healthcare professionals. At a minimum, the auditory implantation team determines the candidacy and helps individuals make informed. Decisions regarding the surgery help the recipients choose the right devices, perform the surgical procedure, provide the required medical care, and perform the device setting, programming and monitoring after surgery (Free et al., 2013). The main professionals that make up the multidisciplinary team include the surgeon, nurse, and audiologist. Before the surgery, the surgeon and audiologist must examine the audiological and medical suitability for cochlear implant insertion (Wiley et al., 2009). The professionals also manage clinical conditions that may hinder the auditory implantation process. The surgery and postimplant care and monitoring precede primary audiological management, which happens some weeks after healing.

While the main surgery procedure relies upon the expertise of a surgeon ad audiologist, different candidates for auditory implantation have varying needs and may require knowledge and input from healthcare professionals. The surgeon and audiologist may have to consult speech and language specialists, family counselors, developmental specialists, and aural rehabilitation specialists. The specialists to be included in the auditory implant team vary depending on multiple factors. Basically, the team involves specialists from multiple disciplines. The team must include all the necessary professionals to provide quality treatment and care to the recipient. Aural rehabilitation specialists, educators, developmental specialists, and speech-language pathologists deliver their services during the preimplant evaluation and after the surgery (Garud & Rappa, 1994). The specialists are important if the recipient of the implant is a child.

Children who are deaf before developing their linguistic capabilities rely on speech-language pathologists and aural rehabilitation specialists to learn how to use the implant to produce speech by organizing spoken language. If a team lacks these specialists, they may acquire the services through school personnel or private therapists. The aural rehabilitation specialist helps the individual to develop their listening and speaking skills. The specialist utilizes different interventions depending on the needs of the patient. One intervention involves using listening and lip-reading to learn how to speak. Other interventions rely on sensory approaches that use listening alone to teach communication skills. Further, other specialists use sign language to train recipients to speak and listen.

Speech-language pathologists, on the contrary, evaluated the speaking and signed communication capabilities of the individual to help determine the most appropriate intervention that addresses their needs. The pathologists in other teams provide speech-language therapy after the auditory implantation surgery. Furthermore, the auditory implant team must collaborate with educators to provide special education support services to recipients. Working with the educator enables the team to develop the appropriate interventions. Education specialists, including mainstream classroom teachers, itinerant teachers, and teachers of the deaf, play a key role in the multidisciplinary team (De Raeve, L., 2010, p.8). They collaborate with the auditory implantation team before and after the surgery. During the preimplantation process, the teachers provide information regarding the child’s functional capabilities in their daily environment. Besides, they collaborate with the team to implement any recommendations and maximize the outcomes of the implantation process. In some instances, the implantation team may also require the services of an educator to plan for the educational protocol and placement of the recipient. The educator acts as the link between the school and the implantation team.

Hearing loss and auditory implantation affect an individual’s educational development and communication capabilities. Besides, they impact their social and emotional well-being. Hence, the auditory implantation team must also include a social worker or a psychologist to assist the affected person and their family (De Raeve, L., 2010, p.9). Working with a social worker and a psychologist enables the individual to undergo both physical and emotional healing. The psychologist provides the team with accurate information regarding the individual’s emotional state. Furthermore, the professional provides interventional therapy to the patient when needed. For instance, they may refer the patient and their family for counseling if the latter presents an obstacle to the implantation process. On the other hand, a social worker supports the patient and their family in different areas, such as access to social support and financial planning (PROOPS, 2006, p. 80). The social worker also coordinates the required services and appointments to enhance the patient’s well-being.

In the case of auditory implantation in adults, the auditory implantation team comprises a surgeon, audiologist, nurse, psychologist, and social worker (Zwolan & Basura, 2021, p.333). However, adults who become deaf after learning a language (post-lingual deafness) may not need the services of aural rehabilitation specialists or speech-language pathologists before or after the surgery. Adults may only require training by the audiologist on how to use the implant to communicate. Nevertheless, the adult patient may need a psychologist or social worker to help them handle any presenting challenges. In addition to these specialists, the auditory implantation team for adults may contain a neurologist and a vocational rehabilitation specialist. A neuropsychologist participates in the preimplantation and post-implantation processes. The professional examines the patient’s capability to understand the surgery process and the outcomes of the implantation process. A neuropsychologist’s role applies to the elderly population, which may have cognitive impairment. They are also effective in helping people with brain trauma or stroke. Besides, the adult patient may require the service of a vocational rehabilitation specialist (Sladen et al., 2017). The professional guides the team and the patient on job placement and career choices. They also guide the patient’s family on the financial management process concerning the implantation surgery.

In addition to the professional staff, the care of an individual before and after the surgery requires input from family members and friends. Family members must help make decisions about cochlear implant surgery (Van de Heyning et al., 2022, p. 196). They also provide support during the rehabilitation process. Furthermore, individuals who undergo auditory implantation require emotional support throughout the evaluation, surgery, and healing phases. Family members enable the patient to develop appropriate expectations after the surgery. They also support the audiologist and the surgeon after surgery. Upon discharge from the hospital, family and friends transport the individual to and from the facility for a follow-up appointment and implant activation. In the case of children, family members must be present to enable the child to develop effective communication skills.

In summary, auditory implantation is one of the best examples of multidisciplinary healthcare practice. The implantation procedure involves multiple steps, from Candidacy determination to aural rehabilitation. At each step, the auditory implantation team collaborates with other professionals to address the specific needs of patients. The team comprises an audiologist, a surgeon, and a nurse. However, depending on a candidate’s specific needs, the team can have several other professionals that address these needs. For instance, children who develop deafness before they learn their language may need specialists such as speech-language pathologists and audiologists. Hence, the process of auditory implantation involves a series of steps. Also, healthcare professionals from different disciplines are required to carry out the steps.

1. Candidacy criteria in UK not mentioned at all, even briefly
2. People are involved are more than being mentioned eg( radiologist, hearing therapy, ec,..)
3. Essay doesn’t have any subheading

 References

De Raeve, L., 2010. Education and rehabilitation of deaf children with cochlear implants: a multidisciplinary task. Cochlear Implants International, 11(sup1), pp.7-14.

Free, R.H., Falcioni, M., Di Trapani, G., Giannuzzi, A.L., Russo, A. and Sanna, M., 2013. The role of subtotal petrosectomy in cochlear implant surgery–a report of 32 cases and review on indications. Otology & neurotology, 34(6), pp.1033-1040.

Hall, A.C., Kenway, B., Sanli, H. and Birman, C.S., 2019. Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Large Vestibular Aqueduct Syndrome—Should We Provide Cochlear Implants Earlier? Otology & Neurotology, 40(8), pp.e769-e773.

Karltorp, E., Eklöf, M., Östlund, E., Asp, F., Tideholm, B. and Löfkvist, U., 2020. Cochlear implants before 9 months of age led to more natural spoken language development without increased surgical risks. Acta Paediatrica, 109(2), pp.332-341.

Garud, R. and Rappa, M.A., 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3), pp.344-362.

PROOPS, D.W., 2006. The cochlear implant teams. Cooper H, Craddock L. Cochlear Implants: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers, pp.70-120.

Sladen, D.P., Gifford, R.H., Haynes, D., Kelsall, D., Benson, A., Lewis, K., Zwolan, T., Fu, Q.J., Gantz, B., Gilden, J. and Westerberg, B., 2017. Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy. The Laryngoscope, 127(10), pp.2368-2374.

Todd, C.A., Naghdy, F. and Svehla, M.J., 2007. Force application during cochlear implant insertion: an analysis for improvement of surgeon technique. IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering, 54(7), pp.1247-1255.

Warner-Czyz, A. D., Roland Jr, J. T., Thomas, D., Uhler, K., & Zombek, L. (2022). American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force guidelines for determining cochlear implant candidacy in children. Ear and Hearing, 43(2), 268, 270.

Van de Heyning, P., Gavilán, J., Godey, B., Hagen, R., Hagr, A., Kameswaran, M., Li, Y., Manoj, M., Mlynski, R., O’Driscoll, M. and Pillsbury, H., 2022. Worldwide variation in cochlear implant candidacy. Journal of International Advanced Otology, 18(3), pp.196-202.

Wiley, S. and Meinzen-Derr, J., 2009. Access to cochlear implant candidacy evaluations: who is not making it to the team evaluations? International journal of audiology, 48(2), pp.74-79.

Zwolan, T.A. and Basura, G., 2021, November. Determining cochlear implant candidacy in adults: limitations, expansions, and opportunities for improvement. In Seminars in Hearing (Vol. 42, No. 04, pp. 331-341). Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.