PDF herunterladen
Semin Hear 2016; 37(03): 272-290
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1584414
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Role of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in Models of Infant Cochlear Implant Management

Colleen Psarros
1   Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre (SCIC), Gladesville, NSW, Australia
2   The Hearing CRC, Victoria, Australia
,
Sarah Love
1   Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre (SCIC), Gladesville, NSW, Australia
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
20. Juli 2016 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Newborn hearing screening has led to the early diagnosis of hearing loss in neonates and early device fitting is common, based primarily on electrophysiologic and radiologic information, with some supplementary behavioral measures. Such early fitting of hearing devices, in particular cochlear implants (CIs), has been beneficial to the majority of children implanted under the age of 12 months who meet the cochlear implant candidacy criteria. Comorbidities are common in children with hearing loss, although they may not be evident in neonates and may not emerge until later in infants. Evidence suggests that the child's outcomes are strongly influenced by a range of environmental factors including emotional and social support from the immediate and extended family. Consequently, such factors are important in service planning and service delivery for babies and children receiving CIs. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability (ICF) can provide a framework to facilitate the holistic management of pediatric cochlear implant recipients. The ICF also can be used to map the progress of recipients over time to highlight emerging issues that require intervention. This article will discuss our preliminary use of the ICF to establish clinical practice; develop advocacy skills among clients and their families; identify eligibility for services such as support in educational settings; enable access to modes of service delivery such as telepractice; provide a conceptual framework for policy and program development for pediatric cochlear implant recipients (i.e., in both disability and health services); and, most importantly, establish a clear pathway for the longitudinal management of the cochlear implant in a child's future. It is anticipated that this model will be applied to other populations receiving cochlear implants through our program.

Keywords

Cochlear implant - infant - WHO-ICF - newborn hearing screening - intervention
 

  • References

  • 1 Dettman SJ, Pinder D, Briggs RJ, Dowell RC, Leigh JR. Communication development in children who receive the cochlear implant younger than 12 months: risks versus benefits. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (2, Suppl): 11S-18S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tait M, De Raeve L, Nikolopoulos TP. Deaf children with cochlear implants before the age of 1 year: comparison of preverbal communication with normally hearing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 71 (10) 1605-1611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ching TYC, Day J, Dillon H , et al. Impact of the presence of auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) on outcomes of children at three years of age. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (52) (Suppl. 02) S55-S64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Edwards LC. Children with cochlear implants and complex needs: a review of outcome research and psychological practice. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2007; 12 (3) 258-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Winter ME, Nicholson Phillips B. Clinical management of cochlear implants in children: an overview. In: Eisenburg L, ed. Clinical Management of Children with Cochlear Implants. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Incorporated; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 6 McKendrick E, Westcott S, Psarros C, Love S, Anderson M. SCIC Service Delivery Quality Standards. (in house publication). Sydney, Australia: SCIC; 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Loeffler C, Aschendorff A, Burger T, Kroeger S, Laszig R, Arndt S. Quality of life measurements after cochlear implantation. The Open Otorhinolarnygology Journal 2010; 4: 47-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Danermark B, Cieza A, Gangé JP , et al. International classification of functioning, disability, and health core sets for hearing loss: a discussion paper and invitation. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (4) 256-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ellingsen KM, Simeonsson RJ. ICF-CY Development Code sets (0-2yrs; 3-5yrs; 6-12yrs). 2011 . Available at: http://www.icf-cydevelopmentalcodesets.com . Accessed on June 21, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Birman CS, Elliott EJ, Gibson WPR. Pediatric cochlear implants: additional disabilities prevalence, risk factors, and effect on language outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (8) 1347-1352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Beltrame MA, Birman CS, Cervera Escario J , et al. Common cavity and custom-made electrodes: speech perception and audiological performance of children with common cavity implanted with a custom-made MED-EL electrode. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 77 (8) 1237-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Health Centre for Genetics Education. Genetics Fact Sheets Fact Sheet 63, Deafness and Hearing loss. April 2016. Available at: http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/Genetics-Fact-Sheets . Accessed on June 21, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Varga R, Kelley PM, Keats BJ , et al. Non-syndromic recessive auditory neuropathy is the result of mutations in the otoferlin (OTOF) gene. J Med Genet 2003; 40 (1) 45-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Inscoe JR, Bones C. Additional difficulties associated with aetiologies of deafness: outcomes from a parent questionnaire of 540 children using cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2016; 17 (1) 21-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Winston AK, Stoner RB. ABR: An illustration of auditory dysfunction through clinical cases, presented in partnership with Rush University. AudiologyOnline. November 2013. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/abr-illustration-auditory-dysfunction-through-12179 . Accessed on June 21, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pau H, Gibson WPR, Sanli H. Trans-tympanic electric auditory brainstem response (TT-EABR): the importance of the positioning of the stimulating electrode. Cochlear Implants Int 2006; 7 (4) 183-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 O'Leary SJ, Mitchell TE, Gibson WP, Sanli H. Abnormal positive potentials in round window electrocochleography. Am J Otol 2000; 21 (6) 813-818
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 King A, Carter L, Van Dun B, Zhang V, Pearce W, Ching T. Australian Hearing aided cortical evoked potential protocols. 2014. Available at: http://hearlab.nal.gov.au/images/Australian%20Hearing%20CAEP%20protocols%20-%20Public.pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Agung K, Purdy S, Kitamura C. The Ling sound test revisited. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology 2005; 27 (1) 33-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rosenzweig E. Ling six sound check. 2015. Available at: http://auditoryverbaltherapy.net/2015/03/25/ling-six-sound-check/ . Accessed on March 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ching T, Hill M. Parent's Evaluation of Aural/Oral performance of Children (PEACH). Australian Hearing 2005; . Available at: http://outcomes.nal.gov.au/Assesments_Resources/PEACH%20ratings%20with%20coverpage%20260509.pdf . Accessed on June 21, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ching TY, Hill M. The Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (3) 220-235
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cantle-Moore R. The Infant Monitor of Vocal Production (IMP). North Rocks, Australia: North Rocks Press; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Cantle-Moore R. The infant monitor of vocal production (IMP): simple beginnings. Deafness Educ Int 2014; 16 (4) 218-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rossetti L. The Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale. Nerang, QLD, Australia: ProEd Australia; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Moeller MP. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics 2000; 106 (3) E43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Landy S. Pathways to Competence: Encouraging Healthy Social and Emotional Development in Young Children, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Sarant J, Garrard P. Parenting stress in parents of children with cochlear implants: relationships among parent stress, child language, and unilateral versus bilateral implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2014; 19 (1) 85-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Abidin RR. Parenting Stress Index (PSI), 3rd ed. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Holt RF, Beer J, Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB, Lalonde K. Contribution of family environment to pediatric cochlear implant users' speech and language outcomes: some preliminary findings. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (3) 848-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Robbins AM. Clinical red flags for slow progress in children with cochlear implants. Loud and Clear 2005; 1: xx
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cruz I, Vicaria I, Wang NY, Niparko J, Quittner AL ; CDaCI Investigative Team. Language and behavioral outcomes in children with developmental disabilities using cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (5) 751-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ching TYC, Day J, Seeto M, Dillon H, Marnane V, Street L. Predicting 3-year outcomes of early-identified children with hearing impairment. B-ENT 2013; (Suppl. 21) 99-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kemperman MH, Hoefsloot LH, Cremers CWRJ. Hearing loss and connexin 26. J R Soc Med 2002; 95 (4) 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Birman CS, Brew JA, Gibson WPR, Elliott EJ. CHARGE syndrome and Cochlear implantation: difficulties and outcomes in the paediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79 (4) 487-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Psarros C, Van Wanrooy E. Remote programming of cochlear implants. In: Houston T, Rushbrooke E, eds. Telepractice in Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2015: 91-122
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Psarros C, McMahon C. Evaluating the benefits of a telepractice model. In: Houston T, Rushbrooke E, eds. Telepractice in Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2015: 47-90
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Morettin M, Cardoso MR, Delamura AM, Zabeu JS, Amantini RCB, Bevilacqua MC. Use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for monitoring patients using cochlear implants. Codas 2013; 25 (3) 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Duncan J. Telepractice aural habilitation for school aged children. Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation Its Instrumentation 2008; 15 (1) 1-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar