Download PDF
Semin Hear 2000; 21(4): 359-366
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-13466
Copyright © 2000 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTING INFANT HEARING PROGRAMS

John Bamford
  • Human Communication and Deafness Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2000 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

This article outlines the underlying principles and evidence-base that allows us to define the characteristics of good quality infant hearing programs. The key features of high-quality programs are identified, and applied to the nine aspects of infant hearing programs: screening and surveillance, audiologic follow-up and assessment, other assessments, disclosure, home-based support, hearing aids, early support, training, and quality assurance.

KEYWORD

Service structure - infant hearing programs - quality assurance

REFERENCES

  • 1 NDCS. Quality Standards in Paediatric Audiology.  London: National Deaf Children's Society;1994 1996: 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 2 JCIH. Year 2000 Statement. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bamford J, Davis A, Hind S. Evidence on very early service delivery: what parents want and don't always get. In: A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification Phonak 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Davis A, Bamford J, Stevens J. Performance of neonatal and infant hearing screens: sensitivity and specificity.  Br J Audiol 2000. In press.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Davis A, Bamford J, Ramkalawan T. A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment.  Health Technol Assessment . 1997;  1(10) 1-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rickards F, Tan L, Cohen L. Auditory steady-state evoked potential in newborns.  Br J Audiol . 1994;  28 327-338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rickards F, Cone-Wesson B, Cohen L. Steady-state evoked potentials-better than ABR?. Symposium Proceedings University of Manchester 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Day J, Bamford J, Parry G. Evidence on the efficacy of insert earphone and soundfield visual reinforcement audiometry with young infants.  Br J Audiol 2000. In press .
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8a Rowson V, Davies A, Quigley A. Comparison of insert earphone real ear SPLs obtained with custom earmoulds and foam tips in infants.  Br J Audiol 2000. Submitted .
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dillon H. 2000 (in press)
  • 10 Seewald R, Moodie K S, Sinclair S, Scollie S. Predictive validity of a procedure for pediatric hearing instrument fitting.  Am J Audiol . 1999;  8 143-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
      >