The objective of this study was to determine whether changes to adult hearing aid provision during COVID-19 affected patient outcomes or service efficiency.

A service evaluation compared three cohorts: patients who had hearing aid provision prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (the conventional pathway); patients who had hearing aid provision during the initial national lockdown (remote fittings); and patients who had hearing aid provision during the gradual reopening phase (a blended service with both face-to-face and remote service provision). Outcomes measured the effectiveness and efficiency of the service, using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit/Difference Profiles (GHABP/DP) and number of follow-up appointments required. Results were assessed using descriptive statistics and error bars, separately for new and existing users.

This study included 240 hearing aid users.

Remote fittings adversely impacted the effectiveness of provision for new hearing aid users with a reduction in all GHABP domains. While new users' benefit was equally as good for blended and conventional service provision, blended provision was less efficient and required more follow-up visits. For existing hearing aid users, no differences were seen in GHADP outcomes of different pathways and remote fittings increased service efficiency.

Remote hearing aid fittings are less effective for new users than hearing aids fitted using standard face-to-face service provision or service provision using a blended model of remote and face-to-face care. Current pathways using a blended model of care are less efficient but equally effective for new hearing aid users compared with provision prior to COVID-19 and result in equivalent patient outcomes in terms of benefit.

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21067585