ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Audits were carried out to assess the clinical effectiveness of historical annual review appointments and a new patient-led review system. METHODS: The written records of 100 patients who attended for an annual review appointment were retrospectively analysed. A further 50 patients who did not respond to the patient-led review offer letter were contacted to determine why they had not responded. The records of patients who subsequently attended for review were also analysed to evaluate their outcome. RESULTS: Ninety-one per cent of patients tested showed no change or an improvement in aided thresholds. Eighty-nine per cent of patients tested showed no change or an improvement in speech discrimination scores. Ninety-three per cent of patients tested showed no change in impedances. Fifty-two per cent of patients required a map check and 36% of patients needed some equipment changed. One patient out of 100 needed referral to Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT). Twenty per cent of the patients who did not respond to the review offer letter reported they had not received the letter. The remainder did not require an appointment or did not understand the system. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that the majority of patients' implant and functional performance remains stable over time. The process of patient-led review has been optimized, so patients fully understand the system and are not missed if they do not receive the letter. CONCLUSION: Patient-led review allows patients to take more responsibility, so they can participate more proactively in the maintenance of their implant and the centre is able to focus their resources on the patients who need it.
