Hearing Loss Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment for Refugees and Asylees in an Urban Clinic, 2014-2017

First, to determine whether using a single-question subjective hearing screen vs gold standard audiometric evaluation is effective for hearing loss screening in refugees and asylees. Second, to understand the clinical pathways for hearing loss diagnosis and treatment.

This is a case series with chart review from January 2014 to December 2017.

A large urban safety net primary care clinic in San Francisco, California.

Patients were included who had a medical record and completed single-question subjective hearing screening and audiometric evaluation during refugee health examinations. An overall 349 patients met all inclusion criteria.

Out of 349 patients, 48% were male; the median age was 29.3 years (SD, 15.1). The majority came from Central or South America (n = 148, 42%) and China (n = 79, 23%). Among all patients, 10 (3%) failed the subjective hearing screen, and 18 (5%) failed audiometric evaluation. Of those who failed the subjective hearing screen, 4 (40%) passed audiometric evaluation. Of those who failed the audiometric evaluation, 12 (66%) passed subjective screening, and only 5 (28%) received a diagnostic audiogram, with 4 diagnosed with hearing loss and 1 receiving hearing aids. The sensitivity of the subjective screening question was 33% and the specificity 99% as compared with audiometric evaluation.

Audiometric evaluation is relatively inexpensive and easily administered, while a single subjective question is a poor screening tool. Hearing loss is undertreated in this population. Ensuring appropriate hearing loss screening, diagnosis, and treatment in this population is paramount to improving quality of life.