Cited by 65Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationHealthcare Systems and Technology

Tinnitus referral pathways within the National Health Service in England: a survey of their perceived effectiveness among audiology staff

Open access
Gander, Phillip E, Hoare, Derek J, Collins, Luke, Smith, Sandra, Hall, Deborah A·2011·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the UK, audiology services deliver the majority of tinnitus patient care, but not all patients experience the same level of service. In 2009, the Department of Health released a Good Practice Guide to inform commissioners about key aspects of a quality tinnitus service in order to promote equity of tinnitus patient care in UK primary care, audiology, and in specialist multi-disciplinary centres. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate utilisation and opinions on pathways for the referral of tinnitus patients to and from English Audiology Departments. METHODS: We surveyed all audiology staff engaged in providing tinnitus services across England. A 36-item questionnaire was mailed to 351 clinicians in all 163 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts identified as having a tinnitus service. 138 clinicians responded. The results presented here describe experiences and opinions of the current patient pathways to and from the audiology tinnitus service. RESULTS: The most common referral pathway was from general practice to a hospital-based Ear, Nose & Throat department and from there to a hospital-based audiology department (64%). Respondents considered the NHS tinnitus referral process to be generally effective (67%), but expressed needs for improving GP referral and patients' access to services. 'Open access' to the audiology clinic was rarely an option for patients (9%), nor was the opportunity to access specialist counselling provided by clinical psychology (35%). To decrease the number of inappropriate referrals, 40% of respondents called for greater awareness by referrers about the audiology tinnitus service. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents in the present survey were generally satisfied with the tinnitus referral system. However, they highlighted some potential targets for service improvement including 1] faster and more appropriate referral from GPs, to be achieved through education on tinnitus referral criteria, 2] improved access to psychological services through audiologist training, and 3] ongoing support from tinnitus support groups, national charities, or open access to the tinnitus clinic for existing patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6963-11-162

Cites

43 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Within the UK healthcare system, tinnitus patients encounter dual obstacles in accessing psychological interventions: a shortage of mental health professionals and inefficient referral pathways to psychological services.

    “Within the UK healthcare system, for instance, tinnitus patients encounter dual obstacles in accessing psychological interventions: a shortage of mental health professionals and inefficient referral pathways to psychological services (Gander et al., 2011; McFerran et al., 2018).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gander, P. E., Hoare, D. J., Collins, L., Smith, S., & Hall, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Gander, Phillip E
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2011-07-06
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
162-162
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013486245
Cited by
65
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Nottingham
  • University of Bristol
  • Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Royal National Institute for Deaf People
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
tinnitus, referral pathways, audiology services, National Health Service, general practitioner referral, access to specialist care, psychological counselling, service equity
MeSH terms
Audiology, England, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Referral and Consultation, State Medicine, Tinnitus, Health Care Surveys

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review