Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine current immittance practices and trends over time, reasons why multifrequency (MF) and multicomponent (MC) tympanometry have been underused, and the prevalence of negative patient reactions to acoustic reflex (AR) testing., Method: Two audiological practice surveys were conducted regarding tympanometry (2008, n = 156) and AR (2009, n = 90)., Results: Most respondents conduct tympanometry and AR threshold (ART) testing. MF and MC tympanometry were rarely reported, generally due to a lack of equipment and training. ART testing was reported most often using both ipsilateral and contralateral presentation. Contralateral testing has decreased over time. Patient complaints of discomfort following AR testing were common. Complaints of tinnitus or hearing loss were present, although rare., Conclusion: Tympanometry and ART tests have remained popular for the past 30 years, whereas acoustic reflex decay (ARD) testing has decreased in popularity. MF and MC tympanometry are conducted infrequently. AR is frequently associated with discomfort but rarely associated with other symptoms. However, one respondent reported that AR testing had caused permanent tinnitus and hearing loss.

Purpose: To gain an understanding of practice patterns for infant diagnostic hearing services at pediatric audiology facilities., Method: The authors used a cross-sectional survey design. From August to November of 2009, surveys were mailed to 1,091 facilities in 28 states and the District of Columbia. One survey was completed per facility, and responses were anonymous., Results: The return rate was 33% (356 surveys). The results revealed that the comprehensiveness of the test batteries used varied among facilities. Over half of the respondents, 146 (55%), reported using a limited test battery, 94 facilities reported using a comprehensive test battery but lacked at least 1 component recommended by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, and 25 facilities reported using a test battery that met Joint Committee on Infant Hearing recommendations. The wait time for an appointment varied between facilities (range = 3 days-5 months) and was affected by the test condition (i.e., natural sleep, sedation, or operating room)., Conclusions: The results suggest that it is difficult for stakeholders to identify pediatric audiology facilities that serve infants less than 6 months of age and that there is variability among facilities in test batteries and wait times for an appointment. Implications exist for diagnostic accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis.