I beg to move,
That this House has considered community audiology.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank those who have joined us for the debate and the Front-Bench teams for giving up their time to put in the final shift of this sitting just before Christmas. I realise that I may not be on many people’s Christmas card lists after detaining them to the bitter end, but I appreciate their giving up their time and responding to this important debate. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate on community audiology, an under-discussed topic and a very important one in our communities.
Hearing and hearing loss are often the subject of stigma and shame, and sometimes light-hearted jokes in the media and film. Hearing loss is a serious issue—it is not a mild inconvenience—and it can be life-changing. It has a profound impact on the lives of millions of people across England and on the effective functioning of our health and care system more broadly.
Audiology services diagnose, treat and support people with hearing loss and deafness. They are critical to the quality of life and health of a significant proportion of constituents in all our communities. In 2024, 5.8% of people in England reported deafness and hearing loss. Although 94% of hearing loss is related to ageing, that is by no means the only patient group affected. In particular, I note that children’s audiology services are incredibly important to the life chances of children who are born deaf.
Untreated hearing loss has far-reaching consequences for physical and mental health, independence, employment and social participation. People with hearing loss are 2.5 times more likely to experience mental ill health related to social isolation and difficulties finding employment. Elderly people with hearing loss are 2.4 times more likely to experience falls, which in turn increases the risk of hospital admission, loss of independence and long-term care needs.
Untreated age-related hearing loss is one of the single largest modifiable risk factors related to dementia. Evidence suggests that treating adult-onset hearing loss between the ages of 45 and 65 reduces the incidence of dementia by 7%. In the context of an ageing population and the growing prevalence of dementia, that statistic alone should place hearing services firmly within our prevention agenda.
There are significant economic implications to poor service provision. The UK loses an estimated £25 billion a year in lost productivity and unemployment as a result of untreated hearing loss. On average, a person with hearing loss will see around £2,000 less a year than a non-disabled person, and 40% of people with hearing loss will retire early due to the challenges of communicating at work.
The demand for audiology services will only increase over the next few decades. The incidence of hearing loss increases by approximately one percentage point for every year of life. That means that at the age of 50, around 50% of people will experience some level of hearing loss, while 80% will by the age of 80. As our population ages, the pressure on audiology services will grow. As we embark on our mission to rebuild our NHS so that it is a first-class health service fit for the 21st century, it is crucial that we get our approach to audiology services right and in line with the Government’s three key shifts.
Audiology is exceptionally well suited to a nationally directed, community-based model for care, for five key reasons. First, most audiology services are low-risk procedures that can be easily carried out in community-based settings. Currently, 50% of national referrals to hospital ear, nose and throat teams are for uncomplicated non-surgical procedures such as earwax removal and age-related hearing loss. That is difficult to justify clinically or operationally, and sending those patients through complex hospital pathways places unnecessary pressure on ENT services, contributes to longer waiting times and is an inefficient use of specialist capacity. Instead, such procedures can be managed in a safe and effective way by audiologists in community settings.
Just this morning, as if perfectly set up for this debate, I met a constituent at the Christmas present-wrapping event for the fantastic ShopMobility charity in Uxbridge. This gentleman shared with me his wife’s experience in accessing audiology services in our community. His wife faces a more complex hearing issue—not something run of the mill that could be dealt with on the high street—that requires specialist intervention. She has been waiting around a year for a specialist appointment and follow-up at NHS ENT services to have the issue resolved. Shifting less complex cases out of secondary care settings would mean more capacity, more appointments and quicker health for my constituent’s wife, and many more people like her.
Secondly, delivering audiology services in community settings is far more cost-effective. Research by the University of York found that NHS adult audiology pathways delivered by community providers cost between 15% and 25% less than the same pathways delivered by an NHS hospital-based service. There is an obvious financial case for reform to a community-based model.
Thirdly, because audiology services are commissioned at a local level by integrated care boards and have in some cases already been transferred to community services, community audiology is not a new concept. We already have many good examples of good practice to build on, but unfortunately provision is variable and patchy. Thirty of the 42 ICBs in England already commission community-based services, with NHS services delivering assessment, hearing aid fitting, rehabilitation and long-term aftercare in primary care settings, community hospitals, outreach clinics and high street locations. Those services are delivered in partnership with GPs and private providers such as Specsavers. For example, the ICB in my constituency in north-west London commissions community audiology services, with self-referral across our whole area, providing a more consistent and accessible model than many parts of England have today.
Fourthly, delivering audiology in community settings assists the preventive healthcare agenda. People are not always forthcoming about seeking help for hearing loss. On average, it takes around seven to 10 years to acknowledge hearing loss and seek help, meaning that by the time most people present to services, the impact on their health and wellbeing can already be significant. Any barriers or difficulties in getting help can put people off asking for it, further delaying treatment and increasing their personal risk of things such as dementia, falls and mental health challenges, which I have outlined already.
Lastly, audiology provision in the community, especially models that enable patient self-referral without a GP appointment, are better for patients. They empower patients and support the early identification of hearing loss. They reduce travel time and other geographical barriers to access, particularly for older people and those with mobility issues. Community audiology services are particularly impactful for deaf children and their families. Children with hearing loss issues require more frequent appointments than adults—for example, to replace ear moulds for hearing aids as they grow—so community provision with appointments closer to home is particularly helpful for those families.
Taken together, the case for driving a quick shift to community-based audiology is clear. However, despite the opportunities, there remain several structural barriers to the rapid roll-out of community audiology services in every area. The recent Kingdon review of children’s audiology services set out many of the barriers in great detail. Its findings, which I would argue are relevant to audiology services in our country more generally, can be summarised in the words of the introduction: audiology is
“a ‘Cinderella’ service…often overlooked, undervalued and underfunded.”
The most significant issue is that the current system is fragmented and inconsistent, with a clear lack of national oversight. That is apparent from the fact that, astonishingly, the Kingdon review found that there is no national audiology lead in the Department of Health and Social Care, resulting a lack of ownership and accountability for the performance of services. It found that communication between the DHSC and NHS England on known service issues did not meet expected standards. I hope that the merging of the functions of NHS England and DHSC will be a key opportunity to resolve those challenges.
There is patchy coverage of audiology services throughout the country, with a significant postcode lottery of access. NHS audiology services are commissioned locally by ICBs, with tariffs set locally. Although local commissioning can support responsiveness to local needs, in this case it has resulted in wide variation in availability, quality and value for money. As I have said, only 30 of 42 ICBs commission adult community audiology services. In around half those areas, coverage is only partial, and in 12 ICBs no service is commissioned at all. In those areas, patients who are concerned about their hearing must first visit the GP and then be referred to a hospital-based service.
As I have set out, the lack of community provision leads to longer waits, poorer services and more expensive provision in some areas of England. NHS England’s 2023 guidance encouraged direct access and self-referral to audiology services to reduce pressures on GPs, yet evidently not all ICBs have implemented that guidance. Local commissioning and tariff setting has also created substantial inconsistencies in tariffs. In some areas, audiology service tariffs have been set below the cost of delivering care, which has forced some providers to reduce and compromise service quality by, for example, cutting follow-up appointments, outcome measurement and rehabilitation support.
In some areas, local commissioning within limited financial envelopes has resulted in activity caps based on financial envelopes rather than patient need, resulting in predictable waiting list growth. Some services have reportedly been asked to reduce throughput or pause the issuing of hearing aids entirely in order to remain within their contractual limits. This practice undermines the principle of care based on clinical needs and risks storing up greater costs for the future.
The lack of national oversight has produced issues with quality assurance. While many independent and third sector providers deliver high-quality services, there is clearly variation in quality of service, and currently no mandatory system-wide quality assurance requirement for all NHS-funded audiology provision. That lack of oversight has also led to certain services falling through the gaps of NHS provision. The starkest example is earwax removal, about which I am sure many of us will have had emails from our constituents. It is perhaps not the sexiest of issues, and not one that we often like to talk about. I will hold my hand up: I have had earwax removal several times—historically from my GP, and more recently in private Specsavers-based settings—so I can speak at first hand about the impact of these services, or the lack of them.
Historically, wax removal was carried out by GPs and nurses in GP practices. Following a change to the GP contract in 2012, it was no longer designated as a core service, and now, over a decade later, the majority of GP practices no longer provide it. As a result, patients who cannot self-care or self-fund their treatment in a private setting often have no option other than to refer themselves to specialist hospital ENT services when the problem gets much worse, unless they live in one of the very small number of ICB areas that do still commission the service as part of the community audiology pathway. Wax removal is a simple, basic procedure, and it is nonsensical that it is not always delivered in the community.
Data collection and oversight is also extremely poor. NHS England recently decided to stop referral-to-treatment waiting time reporting for audiology services, which has removed visibility of the full patient pathway. Diagnostic data suggests that audiology is now a poorly performing diagnostic service, with over 70,000 people waiting and some regions experiencing delays of more than 40 weeks. Without consistent data, commissioners and providers, and policymakers such as us, simply cannot understand where pressures are greatest and where intervention is needed most.
Like many areas of community services, audiology services are also seeing significant workforce planning issues. There are fewer than 10,000 audiologists and hearing therapists in the UK, and work by the National Deaf Children’s Society and the British Academy of Audiology found that 48% of audiology services have seen a decline in staffing since 2019, equating to an overall reduction of around 8% of the total workforce.
The Kingdon review described the audiology workforce as having been “neglected for years”, with low status, poor professional representation, limited governance and insufficient investment in research and training and development. Coherent workforce planning could be facilitated by the introduction of a single professional register for audiologists, as well as a much more consistent approach to professional development, training pathways and retention measures. This is incredibly important given the predicted increase in demand for services, and I hope that audiology services, and community and primary care workforce issues more generally, will feature centrally in the Government’s promised new workforce plan, as we seek to shift activity away from secondary care towards primary and community-based care.
I welcome the steps the Government have taken to move forward improvements in audiology services. The commissioning and publication of the Kingdon review was a very helpful step. The 10-year health plan for England, published in July, committed to enabling self-referral to clinical audiology, using the NHS app where appropriate, which is welcome. NHS England is supporting providers and ICBs to improve audiology services through capital investment, upgrading audiology facilities, expanding testing capacity via community diagnostic centres, and direct support through the national audiology improvement collaborative.
All those developments are welcome, but clearly there is much more to do. We now need a coherent national framework that gives audiology the strategic attention it deserves. That should include, first, a national commissioning framework for audiology services, including standardised tariffs and activity planning to reduce unwarranted variation and ensure that services are commissioned on the basis of patient need rather than short-term financial constraints locally.
Secondly, the framework should mandate system-wide quality assurance for all NHS-funded audiology services, regardless of provider, building on existing frameworks. Thirdly, it should require a clear national direction on the movement of audiology services into community and neighbourhood health models, setting out how services should integrate with primary care, ENT, social care and broader support services. Fourthly, it should require the reinstatement of referral-to-treatment waiting time reporting for audiology, so that performance is transparent and improvement efforts can be properly targeted.
Fifthly, the framework should require sustained investment in the audiology workforce, including for expanded training places, improved retention measures and the implementation of the Kingdon review’s recommendations on professional registration and governance. Finally, it should require action to ensure equitable access to core interventions such as earwax removal, so that access to basic hearing care is not determined by postcode or ability to pay.
Audiology services may not often feature prominently in political debate, but they matter deeply to millions of people. They matter to older people striving to remain independent, to working-age adults seeking to stay in employment, and to children, whose language, development and life chances depend on early and effective intervention. Community audiology offers a practical evidence-based opportunity to improve access, quality and value for money, but realising this opportunity will require national leadership, clear standards and some sustained investment.
I thank all Members and the Front-Bench teams for being here. I hope the Minister can address the issues in his response. If we are serious about prevention, reducing health inequalities and delivering care closer to home, then community audiology must be part of the conversation. I hope that, as we do so often in this place, we can all say “Hear, hear!”, not only as a mark of agreement, but as a promise of a better future for hearing services in every part of our country.