Noise‐induced hearing loss — An examination of the methods of assessment in a cross‐sectional study of 87 industrial workers

Objectives The surveillance of noise‐induced hearing loss (NIHL) according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) differs from the medico‐legal criteria used to assess NIHL. Our study compares the two systems and proposes a novel method of simplifying the medico‐legal criteria and applying it to a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical otolaryngology 2018-04, Vol.43 (2), p.591-597
Main Authors: Das, S., Mulheran, M., Brewster, M., Banerjee, A.R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Approximation
audiology
Audiometry
Criteria
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Hearing loss
Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced - diagnosis
Hearing protection
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
neuro‐otology
Noise
noise trauma
Noise, Occupational
Occupational Diseases - diagnosis
Occupational Exposure
Occupational health
sensorineural hearing
sensorineural hearing loss
United Kingdom
Workers
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives The surveillance of noise‐induced hearing loss (NIHL) according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) differs from the medico‐legal criteria used to assess NIHL. Our study compares the two systems and proposes a novel method of simplifying the medico‐legal criteria and applying it to ascertain noise‐induced hearing loss. Design The anonymised audiograms of a group of 87 industrial workers from a single site were analysed with both methods. Results The comparison showed approximately one‐third of the workers assessed in this study had their noise‐induced hearing loss underestimated by the HSE criteria. The majority of these individuals were over 40 years of age. Conclusions The HSE criteria for noise‐induced hearing loss need review and re‐alignment with the medico‐legal criteria to address the discrepancy between the two systems.
ISSN:1749-4478
1749-4486
DOI:10.1111/coa.13028