Your opinion is valuable, as are others. Denigrating me by assuming that I am
bragging about a low return rate is beneath my comment, so I will let it pass.
I understand completely the ins and outs of real ear hearing aid fitting. It
does not require a brain surgeon to do read a dial or to manipilate a
frequency response. I assume you charge mightily fot the privilege of your
customers getting this wonderful technology, plus it makes it seem that you
are on the cutting edge of technology. You argue expertise, but what you
say is money, money, money. Well, sir, I have renounced trying to boost my ego
at the expense of my patients. I am willing to go the extra mile, to try any
formula which will aid them in their quest for better hearing. I have climbed
that mountain and have rejected it. For you to condemn me with your supposed
superiority is laughable. I have thousands of patients who respect and seek
out my advice, counsel and expertise. What you think is (in the words of Star
Trek Voyager's "7",) irrelevant.
>It seems to me there should not be no argument over whether it is mandatory to
>use real ear to succesfully fit hearing aids.
>If my memory serves me correctly, the latest Marketrak study revealed that only
>64% of conventional hearing aid users are satisfied with their instruments.
>This is not good. We can always boast about our 5-6% return rates, but the
>bottom line is, more than 1/3 of our patients are not happy with their
>instruments. This track record is not going to improve the present negative
>word of mouth about hearing aids.
>We owe it to our patients to conduct every possible outcome measure, whether it
>be real ear, soundfield, subjective reports, and post-fitting questionaires
>(i.e., APHAB). We also should be educating our patients about the superior
>technology afforded by programmable and digital hearing instruments.
>We live in an era of wonderful hearing aid fitting technology. I hope we are
>past the days of simply asking our patients, "so how does that sound?"
>Steven D. Sederholm