Environmental and social factors are key to maximising communication opportunities. Improvements to communication in residential care settings could be based on changes in these with input from residents and staff. Further work is needed to develop effective communication strategies in residential care.

Service providers need to consider the psycho-social consequences of hearing-aid issue alongside audiological needs.

Participant preferences were not explored and limited information resulted in decisions that were clinician-led. The gaps in information reflect previous data on clinician communication and highlight the need for consistent information on a range of interventions to manage hearing loss.

Aims Up to 10% of audiology patients report diffi culties hearing speech in noise even though clinical investigation reveals normal hearing thresholds, in other words, no evidence of physical pathology. The diagnostic category applied to these patients is known as King-Kopetzky Syndrome (KKS). This study aimed to gather descriptions of patients' experiences of the clinical encounter involving their KKS diagnosis and analyse the themes of help-seeking, as part of a larger study into the process of coping with medically unexplained hearing diffi culties. Method A qualitative approach was employed, comprising unstructured interviews in the homes of 25 patients who had attended audiology services (and received a diagnosis of KKS) in Bath and Cardiff. Thematic analysis of transcripts was undertaken, infl uenced by grounded theory techniques. Findings Informants characterized the clinical encounter as either negative or positive. Negative consultations were those in which patients' illness claims were dismissed and as such not validated. Positive encounters were typifi ed by the provision of meaningful information that reconciled clinical information with the patients' experiences of hearing loss. Conclusion Successful management of medically unexplained illnesses requires the adoption of a patient-centred approach, rather than focusing on the absence of observable pathology

Objective: Our objective was to understand the factors that determine whether an adult who is eligible for cochlear implantation (CI) choose to take up or not take up the implant. Design: We conducted a qualitative in-depth interview study, informed by grounded theory methods of constant comparison to build a theory to describe why and how people decide to opt for CI or not. Study sample: Our samples were patients from an audiology service in England. Results: Our results describe the key factors in weighing up risks and benefits. These are influenced by living context and support, information and social identity. We identify the key features that impact decision making for adults eligible for cochlear implants. The importance of the patient lifeworld view is discussed. Conclusions: This qualitative study provides the first in depth examination of how and why patients do and do not take up the offer of cochlear implants. It highlights the complex and iterative nature of this decision making and the individualised risks that trade off benefits of implantation.