Hearing Impairment, Strategies, and Outcomes in Emergency Departments

Not Applicable

Completed

Conditions: Hearing Loss
Emergency Service
Hospital Readmission

Interventions: Other: PockeTalker
Other: No PockeTalker

Registration Number: NCT03594500

Lead Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

Brief Summary: Aim 1: Establish the feasibility of screening for hearing loss in the ED Aim 2: Determine the acceptability of the screening procedure (among the ED population) Aim 3: Derive a preliminary estimate of the effect size of primary outcomes Aim 4: Identify the evidence that decision makers in Veteran Affair Medical Centers, ED and Audiology Services need to commit to this approach

Detailed Description: The goal of this study is to test whether providing hearing assistance devices to older age hearing impaired patients in the ED setting will improve in-ED understanding and preparation for discharge. The proposed intervention, the Hearing Impairment, Strategies and Outcomes in VA Emergency Departments (HearVA-ED) will be conducted in the Emergency Departments of the Manhattan and Brooklyn VAs of the New York Harbor Healthcare System and will recruit hearing impaired ED patients who are 60 years and older and have been admitted to the ED with a low acuity triage score indicating a high likelihood of discharge home. The investigators will identify hearing impairment by using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly survey (HHIE-S). The investigators will randomize consenting patients who fail the screening to either receipt of a simple hearing assistance device (a "PockeTalkerTM") during their ED stay or usual care. The investigators will test whether the provision of a PockeTalkerTM is feasible in this environment (by measuring the amount of device use), whether providing the device improves self-reported quality of hearing and understanding during the ED stay, and whether use of the device improves the quality of preparation for post-discharge care. If this randomized controlled trial demonstrates beneficial effects for in-ED use of a simple hearing assistance device for hearing impaired patients, this strategy can be disseminated throughout the VA healthcare system.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 133

Inclusion Criteria

English or Spanish speaking
Emergency severity index criterion of 4 or 5 (low acuity)
Hearing Handicap Impairment Evaluation Screen greater than or equal to 24
Capacity to consent to participate in research

Exclusion Criteria

Inability to consent to participate in research
Emergency severity index criterion of 1-3 (high acuity)
Hearing Handicap Impairment Evaluation Screen less than 24
Inability to speak English or Spanish

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Intervention: PockeTalker	PockeTalker	Consenting participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention group while receiving care in the emergency department
Control: No PockeTalker	No PockeTalker	Consenting participants will be randomly assigned to the control group while receiving care in the emergency department

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Number of Participants With Use of Hearing Assistance Device (HAD) During Emergency Department (ED) Stay	Duration of ED stay, average of 1-2 days	The investigators will observe and survey intervention participants to determine whether or not they use the hearing assistance device while they are in the ED. This will be measured on a yes/no basis.
Patient-Rated Quality of Hearing, Understanding, and Communication With Providers During ED Stay	Duration of ED stay, average of 1-2 days	Participants will self-rate their quality of hearing, understanding, and communication using a six item questionnaire. Scored on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = do not agree at all; 10 = completely agree) the questions will be: When I talked to the doctors and nurses today ... (1) their voices were very clear; (2) I was able to hear the sounds that I wanted to hear; (3) noises did not cause a problem for my hearing; and (4) listening did not make me tired. Two additional statements will explicitly capture understanding: (5) I was able to understand what they said; and (6) I was able to understand without making an effort. Higher scores will indicate better communication and understanding with providers.
Patient-Rated Quality of Post-Discharge Care	At time of discharge from ED, average 1 day	Patient-rated quality of post-discharge care using a three-item subset of the Care Transition Measure (CTM). The questions are scored on a 1-4 scale (1= strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree): (1) The ED staff considered my preferences and those of my family or caregiver in deciding what my healthcare needs were for discharge; (2) Leaving the ED, I have a good understanding of the things I am responsible for in managing my health; (3) Leaving the ED, I clearly understand the purpose for each of my medications. Higher scores will indicate better discharge preparation.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Education Level	Duration of ED stay, average of 1-2 days	The Investigators will code what education level the Veterans have completed.
Number of Participants Who Live Alone or With Others	Duration of ED stay, average of 1-2 days	The Investigators will code whether the Veteran lives with others or alone.
Primary Language	Duration of ED stay, average of 1-2 days	The Investigators will code what language the Veterans speak when at home.
Number of Participants in the ED Alone or With Others	Duration of ED stay, average of 1-2 days	The Investigators will code whether the Veteran came to the ED with others or alone.
Hospital Readmission	3-30 days after initial ED stay	The Investigators will determine whether patients have had an ED revisit within three and 30 days through CPRS review as well as a brief follow-up phone call four and 35 days after ED discharge.