RNID Digital Hearing aid Campaign - another perspective
Letter to RNID

Dear Mr Key

RNID Digital Hearing aid Campaign -another perspective

You may already be aware of the RNID's campaign to push for a Government commitment
to digital hearing aid provision on the NHS. The RNID Campaign has, however, led to a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion amongst our patients some of whom have signed a postcard printed by the RNID and sent it to you.

We believe that the information offered to RNID members is inaccurate and incomplete. I have written to the RNID and enclose a copy of my letter for your information.

Best wishes
Yours sincerely

Celia Whiteside
Hearing therapy
On behalf of Department of Audiology

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

29th November 2001

Dear Dawn Egan

My conscientious, hard working colleagues and I have become disheartened and dispirited by the RNID campaign to 'keep the pressure up' for the provision of digital hearing aids. I should be glad of the opportunity to give your members and readers some insight into the professionalism and care taken by Audiologists at initial hearing aid fittings.

After aural examination, taking of a history and pure tone audiometry , our patients are
counselled regarding various aspects of their hearing and their feelings about wearing a hearing aid. The following responses are typical:

a) "I don't really have a problem, it's just that people don't speak properly"
b) "I don't want an ugly great thing that goes behind my ear"
c) "My aunt had one of those, but it was no use"
d) "It will solve the social problem of not catching conversation in a crowd"

Some patients express bewilderment and disappointment about the lack of a cure for deafness. Others want the aid for what they perceive as a singular problem such as TV listening or
hearing the phone ring. Many people have been pressured by someone in the family to attend the assessment appointment.

The denial of a problem, the perceived stigma about hearing aids, the expectations of the
performance of the aid -both high and low are all discussed thoroughly before an impression of the ear is taken. Occasionally alternative solutions such as TV listening systems and alerting devices are demonstrated and suggested. This procedure works well and most patients respond positively to the advice and counselling of experts in this particular field.

But things have become much more difficult since your active Campaign. Every day our Department is besieged by callers enquiring about the availability of digital hearing aids, their "rights" to purchase a model for £150, the assumption that a digital aid will 'revolutionise someone's life' and, most commonly, the presupposition that digital hearing aids are all tiny In-ear-models and that they will be suitable for all users. There is very little about the limitations of digital hearing aids or the variety of models and the fact that they may not be the optimum model for everyone. The impression given by your article in One in Seven issue No 25 (OctlNov 2001) is that Audiology Departments continue to issue one outdated, outmoded model which was standard issue more than twenty years ago. Did your researcher approach Audiology Departments and enquire about the variety and models of aids commonly kept in stock? Did anyone ask about how hearing aids are selected and programmed for patients? Your article encourages the reader to believe that most patients are fobbed off with old fashioned, bulky aids without any reference to an audiogram or other clinical test results. Patients who previously had confidence and trust in our service (something which takes years to earn, build and reinforce) have recently become sceptical and suspicious.

We Audiologists pride ourselves on the professionalism and care with which we manage our patrents and their hearing needs. We offer follow up appointments when extra time can be given to people who might be experiencing difficulties in the early stages. We offer maintenance service with peripheral clinics covering a wide rural area. In short, we do our best. But we feel the recent RNID 'digital hearing aid' campaign has seriously undermined our services and our professionalism. No doubt in the future, digital aids will become standard issue and no doubt, as now, there will be some patients who do not find them satisfactory and who leave them unworn. No doubt the RNID will attribute their failure to an inadequate Audiology service, rather than an unrealistic campaign on its own part.

Why does the RNID not stick to what it does best, i.e. promoting deaf awareness within the hearing community? There continues to be a stigma about hearing aids, particularly amongst older people. Have you thought about how attitudes towards hearing aids could be changed? Have you thought, for instance, about updating the excellent 'Hearing Matters' educational pack, which was made as part of the Coast Project in the late 1980s? Do you not agree that positive campaigning is more likely to succeed in the long term?

I should welcome your comments about how organisations such as the RNID can work with professionals more effectively to meet the needs of deaf and hearing-impaired people. I believe that co-operation is better than conflict and that undermining fellow professional specialists is likely to lead to discordance and resentment, which cannot be a good thing for those who seek our respective services.

Yours sincerely

Celia Whiteside
Hearing Therapist
On behalf of Department of Audiology