Abstract
Since its introduction, cochlear implantation has seen an uptake and development which
could not have been anticipated. Not only have the technical possibilities seen significant
change but also the range of indication. Examples include the care of very young or
very old patients, bilateral implantation or the use of residual hearing for combined
electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). This development is very dynamic, offering tremendous
opportunities for hearing rehabilitation of affected patients. At the same time, however,
it places considerable demands on service providers to ensure the care provided is
striving to be of optimal quality. In recent years, an intensive discussion has taken
place with the aim of defining quality parameters to serve as the cornerstones of
cochlear implant (CI) treatment. These were initially based on the description of
a defined course of a cochlear implantation and thus on the partial aspects of process,
structure and result quality for quality assurance. Practical implementation of these
considerations then resulted among other things in the “White Paper CI Care” and the
concept of a “National CI Registry” of the DGHNOKHC. In addition to a content-oriented
discussion within the professional society of the DGNHNOKHC, other parties like health
insurers as payers are also beginning to show interest in influencing the process
of CI care (e. g. QuInCI initiative by Techniker Krankenkasse). The legislator is
also preparing measures that will directly affect CI care (“Implant Registry Act”).
This article will present the current state of knowledge in quality assurance of CI
care and define Germany’s position compared to other countries.
Abstract
Since its introduction, cochlear implantation has seen an uptake and development which
could not have been anticipated. Not only have the technical possibilities seen significant
change but also the range of indication. Examples include the care of very young or
very old patients, bilateral implantation or the use of residual hearing for combined
electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). This development is very dynamic, offering tremendous
opportunities for hearing rehabilitation of affected patients. At the same time, however,
it places considerable demands on service providers to ensure the care provided is
striving to be of optimal quality. In recent years, an intensive discussion has taken
place with the aim of defining quality parameters to serve as the cornerstones of
cochlear implant (CI) treatment. These were initially based on the description of
a defined course of a cochlear implantation and thus on the partial aspects of process,
structure and result quality for quality assurance. Practical implementation of these
considerations then resulted among other things in the “White Paper CI Care” and the
concept of a “National CI Registry” of the DGHNOKHC. In addition to a content-oriented
discussion within the professional society of the DGNHNOKHC, other parties like health
insurers as payers are also beginning to show interest in influencing the process
of CI care (e. g. QuInCI initiative by Techniker Krankenkasse). The legislator is
also preparing measures that will directly affect CI care (“Implant Registry Act”).
This article will present the current state of knowledge in quality assurance of CI
care and define Germany’s position compared to other countries.
Key words
Cochlear Implant - Quality Control - Standardisation
