Purpose Audiology is an essential service for some patient groups and some interventions. This article sets forth experience-based recommendations for how audiological centers can continue to safely and effectively function during COVID-19. Methods The recommendations are the result of panel discussion and are based on the clinical experience of the panelists/authors. Results The recommendations cover which patient groups and which interventions should be treated when and whether this can be performed in the clinic or remotely; how to maintain the safety of workplace via optimizing patient flow within the clinic and the sanitation of rooms and equipment; and overcoming communication challenges that COVID-19 intensifies. Conclusion For essential audiological services to continue under COVID-19, safety measures must be implemented and maintained, and treatment and communication strategies must be adapted to offset communication difficulties due to personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing and to bolster patient confidence. In short, it is vital that staff feel safe, that patients either feel the clinic is safe enough to visit or that remote treatment may be an option, and that clinics and patients have a broad agreement on the urgency of any needed service. We hope that these recommendations help clinics effectively accomplish these goals.

Objective Cochlear implantation has become a well-accepted treatment option for people with single-sided deafness (SSD) and has become a clinical standard in many countries. A cochlear implant (CI) is the only device which restores binaural hearing. The effect of microphone directionality (MD) settings has been investigated in other CI indication groups, but its impact on speech perception in noise has not been established in CI users with SSD. The focus of this investigation was, therefore, to assess binaural hearing effects using different MD settings in CI users with SSD. Methods Twenty-nine experienced CI users with SSD were recruited to determine speech reception thresholds with varying target and noise sources to define binaural effects (head shadow, squelch, summation, and spatial release from masking), sound localization, and sound quality using the SSQ12 and HISQUI19 questionnaires. Outcome measures included the MD settings “natural”, “adaptive”, and “omnidirectional”. Results The 29 participants involved in the study were divided into two groups: 11 SONNET users and 18 OPUS 2/RONDO users. In both groups, a significant head shadow effect of 7.4–9.2 dB was achieved with the CI. The MD setting “adaptive” provided a significant head shadow effect of 9.2 dB, a squelch effect of 0.9 dB, and spatial release from masking of 7.6 dB in the SONNET group. No significant summation effect could be determined in either group with CI. Outcomes with the omnidirectional setting were not significantly different between groups. For both groups, localization improved significantly when the CI was activated and was best when the omnidirectional setting was used. The groups’ sound quality scores did not significantly differ. Conclusions Adaptive directional microphone settings improve speech perception and binaural hearing abilities in CI users with SSD. Binaural effect measures are valuable to quantify the benefit of CI use, especially in this indication group.