System safety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The system safety concept calls for a risk management strategy based
on identification, analysis of hazards and application of remedial
controls using a systems-based approach.[1] This is different from
traditional safety strategies which rely on control of conditions and
causes of an accident based either on the Epidemiological analysis or
as a result of investigation of individual past accidents.[2]. The concept of
system safety is useful in demonstrating adequacy of technologies
when difficulties are faced with probabilistic risk analysis. [3]The
underlying principle is one of synergy: a whole is more than sum of its
parts. Systems-based approach to safety requires the application of
scientific, technical and managerial skills to hazard identification, hazard
analysis, and elimination, control, or management of hazards
throughout the life-cycle of a system, program, project or an activity or a
product.[1] "Hazop" is one of several techniques available for
identification of hazards.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 System approach
o 1.1 Root cause analysis
• 2 Use in other fields
o 2.1 Safety engineering
o 2.2 Weapon system safety
• 3 References

• 4 External links

[edit]System approach
A system is defined as a set or group of interacting, interrelated or
interdependent elements or parts that are organized and integrated to
form a collective unity or a unified whole to achieve a common
objective.[4][5] This definition lays emphasis on the interactions between
the parts of a system and the external environment to perform a specific
task or function in the context of an operational environment. This focus
on interactions is to take a view on the expected or unexpected
demands (inputs) that will be placed on the system and see whether
necessary and sufficient resources are available to process the
demands. These might take form of stresses. These stresses can be
either expected, as part of normal operations, or unexpected, as part of
unforeseen acts or conditions that produce beyond-normal (i.e.,
abnormal) stresses. This definition of a system, therefore, includes not
only the product or the process but also the influences that the
surrounding environment (including human interactions) may have on
the product’s or process’s safety performance. Conversely, system
safety also takes into account the effects of the system on its
surrounding environment. Thus, a correct definition and management of
interfaces becomes very important.[4][5] Broader definitions of a system
are the hardware, software, human systems integration, procedures and
training. Therefore system safety as part of the systems engineering
process should systematically address all of these domains and areas
in engineering and operations in a concerted fashion to prevent,
eliminate and control hazards.
A “system", therefore, has implicit as well as explicit definition of
boundaries to which the systematic process of hazard identification,
hazard analysis and control is applied. The system can range in
complexity from a manned spacecraft to an autonomous machine tool.
The system safety concept helps the system designer(s) to model,
analyse, gain awareness about, understand and eliminate the hazards,
and apply controls to achieve an acceptable level of safety.
Ineffective decision making in safety matters is regarded as the first
step in the sequence of hazardous flow of events in the "Swiss Cheese"
model of accident causation.[6] Communications regarding system risk
have an important role to play in correcting risk perceptions by creating,
analysing and understanding information model to show what factors
create and control the hazardous process.[3] For almost any system,
product, or service, the most effective means of limiting product liability
and accident risks is to implement an organized system safety function,
beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing through to its
development, fabrication, testing, production, use and ultimate disposal.
The aim of the system safety concept is to gain assurance that a
system and associated functionality behaves in a safe manner and is
safe to operate. This assurance is necessary. Technological advances
in the past have produced positive as well as negative effects.[1]
[edit]Root cause analysis
A root cause analysis identifies the set of multiple causes that together
might create a potential accident. Root cause techniques have been
successfully borrowed from other disciplines and adapted to meet the
needs of the system safety concept, most notably the tree structure
from Fault Tree Analysis, which was originally an engineering
technique.[7] The root cause analysis techniques can be categorised into
two groups: a) tree techniques, and b) check list methods. There are
several root causal analysis techniques, e.g. Management Oversight
and Risk Tree (MORT) analysis.[2] Others are Event and Causal Factor
Analysis (ECFA),Multilinear Events Sequencing, Sequentially Timed
Events Plotting Procedure, Savannah River Plant Root Cause Analysis
System.[7]

[edit]Use in other fields

[edit]Safety engineering
Safety engineering describes some of the methods used in nuclear and
other industries. Traditional safety engineering techniques are focused
on the consequences of human error and do not investigate the causes
or reasons for the occurrence of human error. System safety concept
can be applied to this traditional field to help identify the set of
conditions for safe operation of the system. Modern and more complex
systems with computer application and controls require functional
hazard analyses and a set of detailed specifications at all levels that
address safety attributes to be inherent in the design.
[edit]Weapon system safety
Weapon System Safety is an important application of the system safety
field, due to the potentially destructive effects of a system failure or
malfunction. A healthy skeptical attitude towards the system, when it is
at the requirements definition and drawing-board stage, by conducting
functional hazard analyses, would help in learning about the factors that
create hazards and mitigations that control the hazards. A rigorous
process is usually formally implemented as part of systems engineering
to influence the design and improve the situation before the errors and
faults weaken the system defences and cause accidents.[1][2][3][4]
Typically weapons systems pertaining to ships, land vehicles, guided
missiles and aircraft differ in hazards and effects; some are inherent,
such as explosives, and some are created due to the specific operating
environments (as in, for example, aircraft sustaining flight). In the
military aircraft industry safety-critical functions are identified and the
overall design architecture of hardware, software and human systems
integration are thoroughly analyzed and explicit safety requirements are
derived and specified during proven hazard analysis process to
establish safeguards to ensure essential functions are not lost or
function correctly in a predictable manner. Prevention of mishaps is the
objective.

Workplace safety
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Workplace safety & health is a category of management responsibility
in places of employment.
To ensure the safety and health of workers, managers establish a focus
on safety that can include elements such as:

 management leadership and commitment

 employee engagement
 accountability
 ensuring all task are carried out safely and efficiently and
effectivily
 safety programs, policies, and plans
 safety processes, procedures, and practices
 safety goals and objectives
 safety inspections for workplace hazards
 safety program audits
 safety tracking & metrics
 hazard identification and control
 safety committees to promote employee involvement
 safety education and training
 safety communications to maintain a high level of awareness on
safety
 Contents
[hide]

• 1 Workplace fatalities statistics

o 1.1 European Union
o 1.2 US Statistics
• 2 See also
• 3 References

• 4 External links

[edit]Workplace fatalities statistics

[edit]European Union
Fatalities per
Country Fatalities
100,000 employees
Austria 145 4.8
Belgium 41 2.4
Denmark 27 1.8
Finland 29 1.9
France 318 2.9
Germany 465 2.3
Greece 48 3.0
Ireland 52 3.2
Italy 427 2.8
Luxembourg 6 3.2
Netherlands 60 2.0
Portugal 285 7.6
Spain 365 3.7
Sweden 28 1.2
United Kingdom 182 1.1
European Union 2,478 2.5

Data from 2003 [1]

In most countries males comprise the vast majority of workplace
fatalities. In the EU as a whole, 94% of death were of males.[1] In the UK
the disparity was even greater with males comprising 97.4% of
workplace deaths.[2][3]
[edit]US Statistics
The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of
Labor compiles information about workplace fatalities in the United
States. Since 1992, the year with the most workplace fatalities was
1994 with 6,632 fatalities, and the lowest in 2002 with 5,534.

The Bureau also compiles information about the most dangerous jobs.
The most recent information comes from the year 2006, during which
5,840 people died on the job.
Fatalities per
Job Fatalities
100,000 employees
Fishermen 53 147.2
Pilots 104 90.4
Timber cutter 66 84.6
Structural metal workers 36 61.0
Waste collectors 37 40.7
Farmers and ranchers 292 37.2
Power-line workers 38 34.9
Miners 156 34.5
Roofers 81 33.5
Truck drivers 957 27.5
All occupations 5,840 4.0

Hearing conservation program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hearing conservation programs are design to prevent noise induced
hearing loss. A written hearing conservation program is required by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “whenever
employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted
average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale
(slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent.” [1] This 8-hour
time-weighted average is known as an exposure action value. While
the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) also requires a
hearing conservation program, MSHA does not require a written hearing
conservation program. MSHA’s hearing conservation program
requirement can be found in 30 CFR § 62.150, and requires has almost
the same exact requirements as the OSHA hearing conservation
program requirements. Therefore, only the OSHA standard 29 CFR
1910.95 will be discussed in detail.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Program requirements
• 2 Sound survey
• 3 Administrative and engineering controls
• 4 Hearing protection device
o 4.1 Earplugs
o 4.2 Earmuffs
• 5 Noise reduction ratings
• 6 Audiometric testing program
• 7 Employee training and education
• 8 Record keeping
• 9 Program evaluation
• 10 See also
• 11 References

• 12 External links
[edit]Program requirements
The OSHA standard contains a series of program requirements.

 Engineering Controls: 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1) requires that

“feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized. If
such controls fail to reduce sound levels…personal protective
equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels…”
 Monitoring: 29 CFR 1910.95(d) requires that monitoring be
conducted when “any employee’s exposure may equal or exceed an
8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels.
 Testing: 29 CFR 1910.95(g) requires an “audiometric testing
program” for “all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-
hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels”.
 Hearing Protectors: 29 CFR 1910.95(i) states that “employers
shall make hearing protectors available to all employees exposed to
an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or greater at no cost
to the employees”
 Training: 29 CFR 1910.95(k) mandates an annual “training
program” for “all employees who are exposed to noise at or above
an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels…” and mandates
certain aspects of the training that must be included. This includes
the effects of noise on hearing; purpose, advantages,
disadvantages, and attenuation of different types of hearing
protectors; purpose audiometric testing.
 Record Keeping: 29 CFR 1910.95(m) states that employers
“shall maintain an accurate record of all employee exposure
measurements…”

[edit]Sound survey
A sound survey is often completed to determine areas of potential high
noise exposure. This type of survey is normally completed using asound
level meter (SLM). There are three types of sound level meters. Type 0
is precision instrument normally used in laboratories. A type 1 is for
precision measurements taken in the field. Type 2 sound level meters
are less precise than type 1 and are often used to take all-purpose
sound level measurements. Noise monitoring is generally completed
using a noise dosimeter that integrates “all continuous, intermittent and
impulsive sound levels”[2] to determine a person’s noise exposure level.
Surveys must be repeated when there are significant changes in
machinery and/or processes that would affect the noise level.[3]

[edit]Administrative and engineering controls

Administrative and engineering controls are the preferred method to
prevent noise exposure. Normally, administrative and engineering
controls do not require personal protective equipment and therefore are
normally more protective. However, it is not always feasible to use
administrative and engineering controls as the only ways to prevent
noise over-exposure. The key is to maintain an 8-hour time-weighted
average of less than 85 dBA so that personal protective equipment is
not required.

[edit]Hearing protection device

If engineering controls fail to maintain an 8-hour time-weighted average
below 85 dBA, then a hearing protection device (hpd) is required. There
are two general types of hpd’s: earplugs and ear muffs. Each one has
its own benefits and drawbacks. The selection of the proper hpd to be
worn is commonly done by an industrial hygienist so that the proper
amount of noise protection is worn. OSHA requires that hpd be given
free of charge.[4]
[edit]Earplugs
There are four general classes of earplugs. These include: premolded,
formable, custom molded and semi-insert.
-Premolded earplugs do not require the plug to be formed before it is
inserted into the ear. This prevents the plugs from becoming soiled
before insertion.
-Formable earplugs are made of a variety of substances. However, all
each substance shares the common feature of being able to be shaped
by the user prior to insertion. One drawback of this is the obvious need
for the user to have clean hands while shaping the earplug. They do
have the advantage of forming to the users ear, while many premolded
earplugs do not accomplish this very well.
-Custom molded ear plugs are unique for each person, since they are
cast from each user’s own ear canals. Therefore, they provide a
personalized fit for each individual.
-Semi-inserts are generally a soft earplug on the end of band. The band
aides in maintaining the earplug in position. They are often useful since
they can be quickly removed and inserted.
[edit]Earmuffs
Earmuffs are another type of hpd. The main difference between
earmuffs and earplugs, is that earmuffs are not inserted inside the ear
canal. Instead the muffs create a seal around the outside of the ear to
prevent noise from reaching the inner ear. Earmuffs are easy to wear
and often provide a more consistent fit than an earplug. There are
earmuffs available that use the principle of active noise control to help
reduce noise exposures. However, earmuffs are not commonly worn by
people who have sideburns or glasses, who find earmuffs to be
uncomfortable.[5]

[edit]Noise reduction ratings

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that
all hearing protection devices be labeled with their associated noise
reduction rating (NRR).[6] The NRR provides the estimated attenuation
of the hearing protection device. However, it has been found that the
“labeled manufacturers' noise reduction ratings (NRRs) substantially
overestimated the actual field attenuation performance.”[7][8] To
determine the amount of noise reduction afforded by a hearing
protection device, OSHA recommends that 7 db be subtracted from the
NRR. The NRR is generally given in a C-weighted format, so to obtain
the A-weighted reduction, one must subtract 7 db. OSHA also
recommends a 50% safety factor, therefore the final OSHA
recommended reduction would be (NRR-7)/2.[9]

[edit]Audiometric testing program

Audiometric testing is a very important part of a hearing conservation
program. Audiometric testing allows for the identification of those that
have lost significant hearing. Additionally, the testing allows for the
identification of those who are in process of losing their hearing.
Audiometric testing is most important in identifying those who have
permanent hearing loss. This is called noise-induced permanent
threshold shift (NIPTS) [10]

[edit]Employee training and education

Proper training and education of those exposed to noise is the key to
preventing noise-induced hearing loss. If employees are properly
trained on how to follow a hearing conservation program, then the risk
of noise-induced hearing loss is reduced. OSHA requires said training
to be completed on an annual basis. Proper training is imperative since
“even with a very modest amount of instruction attenuation performance
can be significantly improved.”[11][12]

[edit]Record keeping
OSHA requires that records of exposure measurements and
audiometric tests be maintained. Records are also required to have the
following:

 name and job classification

 date of the audiogram
 examiner’s name
 calibration date
 employee’s most recent noise exposure assessment
 background sound pressure levels in audiometric test booths.

Noise exposure measurement records must be maintained for at least 2

years. Audiometric test records must be retained for the duration of the
affected employee’s employment. Additionally, employees, former
employees, representatives designated by the individual employee and
the Assistant Secretary all must have access to these records.[13]

[edit]Program evaluation
Proper program evaluation is important in maintaining the health of
hearing conservation program. The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) has created a checklist to help evaluate the
effectiveness of a hearing conservation program. It can be found on
their website.[14] NIOSH recommends that fewer than 5% of exposed
employees should have a 15 dB Significant Threshold Shift in the same
ear and same frequency.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is pushing a
higher emphasis on a hearing loss prevention program rather than a
hearing conservation program. While this change may seem
superfluous, it is important to note the advancement. Prevention implies
a response by the workplace caused by initial signs of employee
hearing loss rather than instilling a new set of policies (such as “buy
quiet”) and thinking (such as hearing protection training and education)
to decrease the possibility of occupational hearing loss from happening
in the first place.
The Buy Quiet policy is an easy way to progress towards a safer work
environment. Many traditionally noisy tools and machines are now being
redesigned in order to manufacture quieter running equipment, so a
“buy quiet” purchase policy should not require new engineering
solutions in most cases [15]. As a part of the “buy quiet” campaign, the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection released a
products and vendor guidance sheet in order to assist contractors for
achieving compliance with the New York City Noise Regulations.
In order to make these plans effective, employees and administration
need to be educated in occupational noise-induced hearing loss
prevention. It is also necessary to identify and examine sources of noise
first before being able to control the damage it may cause to hearing.
For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
has conducted a study and created a database on handheld power
tools for the sound power levels they expose their operators to.
This Power Tools Database allows contractors in a trade-skill profession
to monitor their exposure limits and allow them preparation to prevent
permanent hearing damage.

[edit]See also
Noise-induced hearing loss
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is an increasingly prevalent
disorder that results from exposure to high-intensity sound, especially
over a long period of time.

Contents
[hide]
 • 1 Description
• 2 Mechanism
• 3 Types
o 3.1 Acoustic trauma
o 3.2 Gradually developing NIHL
• 4 Prevention
• 5 Hearing loss in the workplace
o 5.1 Hearing loss for musicians
• 6 Workplace standards
• 7 Mitigation
• 8 See also
• 9 Notes
• 10 References

• 11 External links

[edit]Description

NIHL is a preventable hearing disorder that affects people of all ages

and demographics.

[edit]Mechanism

NIHL occurs when too much sound intensity is transmitted into and
through the auditory system. An acoustic signal from an energy source,
such as a radio, enters into the external auditory canal, and is funneled
through to the tympanic membrane. The tympanic membrane acts as
an elastic diaphragm and drives the ossicular chain of the middle
ear system into motion. Then the middle ear ossicles transfer
mechanical energy to the cochlea by way of the stapes footplate
hammering against the oval window of the cochlea. This hammering
causes the fluid within the cochlea (perilymph and endolymph) to push
against the stereocilia of the hair cells, which then transmit a signal to
the central auditory system within the brain. When the ear is exposed to
excessive sound levels or loud sounds over time, the overstimulation of
the hair cells leads to heavy production of reactive oxygen species,
leading to oxidative cell death. In animal experiments, antioxidant
vitamins have been found to reduce hearing loss even when
administered the day after noise exposure.[1] They were not able to fully
prevent it.

Some of the abnormalities include metabolic exhaustion of the

“ hair cells, structural changes and degeneration of structures
within the hair cells, morphological changes of the cilia, ruptures
of cell membranes, and complete degeneration and loss of hair
cells, neural cells and supporting cells. ”
—Gelfand, 2001, p. 202

NIHL is therefore the consequence of overstimulation of the hair cells

and supporting structures. Structural damage to hair cells (primarily the
outer hair cells) will result in hearing loss that can be characterized by
an attenuation and distortion of incoming auditory stimuli.

[edit]Types

The ear can be exposed to short periods in excess of 120 dB without

permanent harm — albeit with discomfort and possibly pain; but long
term exposure to sound levels over 80 dB can cause permanent
hearing loss.[citation needed]
There are two basic types of NIHL:

 NIHL caused by acoustic trauma and

 gradually developing NIHL.

[edit]Acoustic trauma
NIHL caused by acoustic trauma refers to permanent cochlear damage
from a one-time exposure to excessive sound pressure. This form of
NIHL commonly results from exposure to high-intensity sounds such
as explosions, gunfire, a large drum hit loudly and firecrackers.
[edit]Gradually developing NIHL
Gradually developing NIHL refers to permanent cochlear damage from
repeated exposure to loud sounds over a period of time. Unlike NIHL
from acoustic trauma, this form of NIHL does not occur from a single
exposure to a high-intensity sound pressure level. Gradually developing
NIHL can be caused by multiple exposures to any source of excessive
volume, such as home and vehicle stereos, concerts, nightclubs,
excessive noise in the workplace, and personal media players. The U.S.
Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) states that exposure to 85 dB(A) of noise,
known as an exposure action value, for more than eight hours per
daycan result in permanent hearing loss (Occupational Health and
Safety Administration [OSHA], 2002). Since decibels are based on
alogarithmic scale, every increase of 3 decibels SPL results in a
doubling of intensity, meaning hearing loss can occur at a faster rate.
Therefore, gradually developing NIHL occurs from the combination of
sound intensity and duration of exposure.
Both NIHL caused by acoustic trauma and gradually developing NIHL
can often be characterized by a specific pattern presented in
audiological findings. NIHL is generally observed to affect a person’s
hearing sensitivity in the higher frequencies, especially at 4000 Hz.
"Noise-induced impairments are usually associated with a notch-shaped
high-frequency sensorineural loss that is worst at 4000 Hz, although the
notch often occurs at 3000 or 6000 Hz, as well" (Gelfand, 2001, p. 202).
Doctoral students at the University of Iowa have termed this notch,
specific to a noise-induced etiology, a "muna." The symptoms of NIHL
are usually presented equally in both ears (Gelfand). Not all audiological
results from patients with NIHL match the above description. Often a
decline in hearing sensitivity will occur at frequencies other than at the
typical 3000–6000 Hz range. Variations arise from differences in
people’s ear canal resonance, the frequency of the harmful acoustic
signal, and the length of exposure (Rösler, 1994). As harmful noise
exposure continues, the commonly affected frequencies will broaden
and worsen in severity (Gelfand). "NIHL usually occurs initially at high
frequencies (3, 4, or 6 kHz), and then spreads to the low frequencies
(0.5, 1, or 2 kHz)" (Chen, 2003, p. 55).

[edit]Prevention

NIHL can easily be prevented through the use of some of the most
simple, widely available and economical tools. This includes but is not
limited to ear protection (i.e. earplugs and earmuffs), education, and
hearing conservation programs. Earplugs and earmuffs can provide the
wearer with at least 5 to 10 dB SPL of attenuation (Gelfand, 2001).
According to a survey by Lass, Woodford, C. Lundeen, D. Lundeen and
Everly-Myers (1987), which examined high school students’ attitudes
and knowledge concerning hearing safety, 66% of the subjects reported
a positive response to wearing hearing protection devices if educated
about NIHL. Unfortunately, more often than not, individuals will avoid
the use of ear protection due to embarrassment, lack of comfort, and
reduced sound quality.[citation needed]

However, the effectiveness of hearing protection programs is

“ hindered by poor compliance in the use of hearing protection
devices due to communication difficulties, comfort issues,
individuals’ attitudes about protecting themselves from noise-
induced hearing loss, and individuals’ perceptions about how
others who do not use hearing protection will view them if they
choose to use hearing protection. ”
—Fausti et al., 2005, p. 51

[edit]Hearing loss in the workplace

About 30 million workers are exposed to hazardous noise, with an
additional 9 million exposed to solvents and metals that put them at risk
for hearing loss.[2] Occupational hearing loss is one of the most common
occupational diseases. 49% of male miners have hearing loss by the
age of 50.[2] By the age of 60, this number goes up to 70%.[2] The
following is a list of occupations that are most susceptible to hearing
loss:[2]

 Agriculture
 Mining
 Construction
 Manufacturing
 Utilities
 Transportation
 Military
 Orchestra musicians
 Orchestra conductors

[edit]Hearing loss for musicians

Musicians, from classical orchestras to rock groups, are exposed to
high decibel ranges.[3][4] Although some rock musicians experience
noise-induced hearing loss from their music,[5] it is still debated as to
whether classical musicians are exposed to enough noise to
causehearing impairments.[6]
Music-induced hearing loss is still a controversial topic for hearing
researchers.[7] While some studies have shown that the risk for hearing
loss increases as music exposure increases,[7] other studies found little
to no correlation between the two.[7] Experts at the 2006 "Noise-Induced
Hearing Loss in Children at Work and Play" Conference agreed that
further research into this field was still required before making a broad
generalization about music-induced hearing loss.[7]

[edit]Workplace standards
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) describes
standards for occupational noise exposure in articles 1910.95 and
1926.52 [1]. OSHA states that an employer must implement hearing
conservation programs for employees if the noise level of the workplace
is equal to or above 85 dB(A) for an averaged eight-hour time period
(Gelfand, 2001). OSHA also states that "exposure to impulsive or
impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level"
(CFR 1910.95(b)(2)). The United States Department of Defense (DoD)
instruction 605512 has some differences from OSHA 1910.95 standard,
for example, OSHA 1910.95 uses a 5 dB exchange rate and DoD
instruction 605512 uses a 3 dB exchange rate.

Hearing conservation programs in the workplace and in the

“ general population seek to increase compliance and effectiveness
of hearing protection protocols through audiometric screening
tests and education on the dangers of noise exposure. ”
—Fausti et al., 2005, p. 51

Employees are required to wear hearing protection when it is identified

that their eight-hour time weighted average (TWA) is above
theexposure action value of 90 dB. If subsequent monitoring shows that
85 dB is not surpassed for an eight-hour TWA, the employee is no
longer required to wear hearing protection (OSHA 3074, 2002
(Revised)).

[edit]Mitigation
For people living with NIHL, there are several management options that
can improve the ability to hear and effectively communicate.
Management programs for people with NIHL include counseling and the
use of hearing aids and FM systems. With proper amplification and
counseling, the prognosis is excellent for people with NIHL. The
prognosis has improved with the recent advancements in digital hearing
aid technology, such as directional microphones, open-fit hearing aids,
and more advanced algorithms. Annual audiological evaluations are
recommended to monitor any changes in a patient’s hearing and to
modify hearing-aid prescriptions. There are no medical options at
present for a person with NIHL. However, current research for the
possible use of drug and genetic therapies look hopeful (National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [NIDCD],
2006).

[edit]See also