SLPSurveyEar and hearing2025

A Survey of Current Audiology Practice in Adult Cochlear Implant Programs and Its Impact on Access to Care.

Terry A Zwolan, Meredith Holcomb, Barbara Buck and 3 others

PMID 40676756

WHAT IT FOUND

Half of surveyed audiologists reported wait times of four weeks or more for adult cochlear implant evaluations.

Most recommended six follow-up visits in the first year, but telehealth was rarely used to replace routine in-person appointments. Manufacturer counseling did not shorten wait times.

Key findings

01Forty-nine percent of respondents reported extended wait times of four weeks or more for a new adult cochlear implant candidate evaluation.

02The median total number of postoperative appointments recommended for the first year following surgery was six.

03Telehealth was rarely used to replace routine in-person appointments, with the most common reason for non-use being clinic policy prohibitions.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The response rate could not be determined because the total number of audiologists aware of the study via social media was unknown. The survey relied on self-reported data, which may not reflect actual clinical practice or patient records. Results may not be generalizable to all cochlear implant clinics, particularly those not represented in the distribution channels used. The study did not measure patient outcomes, so it cannot determine if reduced visit frequency or telehealth use impacts clinical success.

Declared interests

No conflicts of interest or funding sources were explicitly declared in the provided text.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the reduction in postoperative visits or the low telehealth usage as evidence of optimal or recommended practice. The survey reports current behaviors, not validated outcomes, and the authors explicitly state that guidelines are needed to determine when programming is no longer necessary.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →