AIM: To explore medical oncologists' and audiologists' knowledge and attitudes regarding ototoxicity monitoring, and to gain an understanding of monitoring currently being implemented at District Health Boards (DHBs) nationwide. We also aimed to identify ways in which audiological outcomes for patients receiving potentially ototoxic treatments could be improved, including examining whether the formulation and implementation of a national ototoxicity monitoring guideline is necessary. METHOD: Complementary telephonic interviews were conducted with 16 senior or charge audiologists and seven senior medical oncologists from DHBs across New Zealand, and their responses analysed. RESULTS: Responses indicate a comprehensive understanding of ototoxicity across both disciplines; however there is limited familiarity with ototoxicity monitoring protocols. Patients across New Zealand undergo significantly variable ototoxicity monitoring; local practices range from no routine monitoring to audiological assessment prior to each cycle of chemotherapy. No routine audiological follow up is conducted post completion of treatment at any DHB, in contrast with international guidelines. Twenty-two of 23 participants were in favour of development of a national ototoxicity monitoring guideline. CONCLUSION: There is significant discrepancy in how ototoxicity monitoring is conducted across New Zealand, and implementation of a national ototoxicity monitoring protocol may improve audiological outcomes for patients receiving ototoxic chemotherapy.
AIM: To explore medical oncologists' and audiologists' knowledge and attitudes regarding ototoxicity monitoring, and to gain an understanding of monitoring currently being implemented at District Health Boards (DHBs) nationwide. We also aimed to identify ways in which audiological outcomes for patients receiving potentially ototoxic treatments could be improved, including examining whether the formulation and implementation of a national ototoxicity monitoring guideline is necessary. METHOD:Complementary telephonic interviews were conducted with 16 senior or charge audiologists and seven senior medical oncologists from DHBs across New Zealand, and their responses analysed. RESULTS: Responses indicate a comprehensive understanding of ototoxicity across both disciplines; however there is limited familiarity with ototoxicity monitoring protocols. Patients across New Zealand undergo significantly variable ototoxicity monitoring; local practices range from no routine monitoring to audiological assessment prior to each cycle of chemotherapy. No routine audiological follow up is conducted post completion of treatment at any DHB, in contrast with international guidelines. Twenty-two of 23 participants were in favour of development of a national ototoxicity monitoring guideline. CONCLUSION: There is significant discrepancy in how ototoxicity monitoring is conducted across New Zealand, and implementation of a national ototoxicity monitoring protocol may improve audiological outcomes for patients receiving ototoxic chemotherapy.