Good practice guidelines for clinical psychologists working in paediatric cochlear implant teams

Bathgate, Fionna; Bennett, Emily; Cropper, Jenny; Edwards, Lindsey; Emond, Alice; Gamble, Caroline; Kentish, Rosie; Samuel, Victoria

doi:10.1179/1467010013z.000000000131

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Irrespective of age, individuals benefit from implants including those who are over 65 [39]. Bathgate et al [40] have produced a guideline for psychologists working in implants teams.…”

Section: Cochlear Implantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being Deaf in Mainstream Education in the United Kingdom: Some Implications for their Health

Berry¹

2017

ujp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the issue of deaf children in mainstream education and the implications this has for their health. Currently more than 48,000 children in the UK are classified as deaf with some 85% taught in mainstream schools although they are significantly educationally underachieving. The vulnerability of deaf children and some of the difficulties they face are highlighted. An outline is provided of the nature of deafness and the Deaf Community, together with a description of cochlear implants and of British Sign Language. Some of the issues relating to the need for assessment, treatment and support for deaf children are discussed, including increased risk of sexual and physical abuse. Possible professional roles for psychologists are identified.

show abstract

“…Irrespective of age, individuals benefit from implants including those who are over 65 [39]. Bathgate et al [40] have produced a guideline for psychologists working in implants teams.…”

Section: Cochlear Implantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being Deaf in Mainstream Education in the United Kingdom: Some Implications for their Health

Berry¹

2017

ujp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2). These professionals may include but are not limited to a physician, audiologist, speech-language pathologist, teacher of the deaf, early intervention specialist in children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, and counselor/psychologist/social worker (Bathgate et al 2013; Martin & Raine 2013; Moeller et al 2013; Athalye et al 2015; Madell & Flexer 2019). The National Deaf Children’s Society and the British CI Group recommend a team of at least seven different professionals, with the possibility of more professional involvement based on the child’s unique situation (e.g., ophthalmologist, cardiologist) (Archbold et al 2015).…”

Section: Candidacy Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although each method of communication has at least some children who perform at high levels, the likelihood of achieving strong spoken language skills increases substantially in more auditory-based programs (Robbins 2009;Geers et al 2017). Psychosocial Well-Being • CI candidacy evaluations benefit from inclusion of a social worker, clinical psychologist, counselor and/or therapist to assess the child's cognitive function and general development and evaluate the family's support, commitment, and motivation (Bathgate et al 2013;Madell & Flexer 2019). These professionals can evaluate the family's commitment to not only undergoing surgery, but also engaging in the intense follow-up appointments and aural (re)habilitation protocol required to maximize outcomes postimplantation (Heman-Ackah et al 2012).…”

Section: Counseling and Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarizes the available evidence on pediatric cochlear implantation to provide current guidelines for clinical protocols and candidacy recommendations in the United States. Candidacy determination involves specification of audiologic and medical criteria per guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration. However, recommendations for a cochlear implant evaluation also should maintain flexibility and consider a child’s skill progression (i.e., month-for-month progress in speech, language, and auditory development) and quality of life with appropriately fit hearing aids. Moreover, evidence supports medical and clinical decisions based on other factors, including (a) ear-specific performance, which affords inclusion of children with asymmetric hearing loss and single-sided deafness as implant candidates; (b) ear-specific residual hearing, which influences surgical technique and device selection to optimize hearing; and (c) early intervention to minimize negative long-term effects on communication and quality of life related to delayed identification of implant candidacy, later age at implantation, and/or limited commitment to an audiologic rehabilitation program. These evidence-based guidelines for current clinical protocols in determining pediatric cochlear implant candidacy encourage a team-based approach focused on the whole child and the family system.

show abstract

“…In the last two decades, cochlear implant has proved itself to be a technological boom and boon for the management of severe to profound hearing loss patients especially those who relied on lip-reading, sign language, and amplification systems that were often unable to make speech sounds audible for the profoundly deaf user. 1,2 It is undoubtedly one of the most life changing inventions till date.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting audiological performance and speech intelligibility in prelingually deaf children after cochlear implantation: a study

Hota¹

2019

Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The primary aim is to understand the factors affecting the audiological, speech and language outcome in prelingually deaf children, with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss, who have undergone cochlear implantation.Methods: 40 prelingually deaf children, with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss, who have undergone cochlear implantation were enrolled. Auditory performance and speech intelligibility was gauged by revised categories of auditory performance (CAP) score and speech intelligibility rating (SIR) respectively, preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year post cochlear implantation. These values were analysed using statistical package for social sciences with respect to duration of auditory deprivation, duration of use of hearing aid prior to cochlear implantation, duration of auditory verbal therapy prior to cochlear implantation and age of child at cochlear implantation. Results: There is a negative relation between CAP and duration of auditory deprivation at 6 months and 1 year post cochlear implantation. Also, negative relation is seen between CAP and age of child at cochlear implantation at 6 months and 1 year post cochlear implantation. There is a negative relation between SIR and duration of auditory deprivation at 6 months and 1 year post cochlear implantation. Also, negative relation is seen between SIR score and age of child at cochlear implantation at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year post cochlear implantation.Conclusions: Lesser the auditory deprivation and younger the child at cochlear implantation, better is the audiological performance and speech intelligibility post cochlear implantation.

show abstract

Good practice guidelines for clinical psychologists working in paediatric cochlear implant teams

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Being Deaf in Mainstream Education in the United Kingdom: Some Implications for their Health

Being Deaf in Mainstream Education in the United Kingdom: Some Implications for their Health

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children

Factors affecting audiological performance and speech intelligibility in prelingually deaf children after cochlear implantation: a study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About