Professor of Neurology, Otolaryngology, and Physical Therapy/Human Movement
Science, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago IL, USA.
Professor of Neurology, Otolaryngology, and Physical Therapy/Human Movement
Science, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago IL, USA.
Dr. Hain sees patients in a oto-neurology clinic called "Chicago Dizziness and Hearing ", in Chicago Illinois. In this clinic there are three groups of people with degrees that have a "doctor" in their title - -medical doctors (2), DPT - -doctor of physical therapy (2), and an AuD, a doctor of audiology.
Dr. Hain is a board certified neurologist. For comparison with the Au.D. degree discussed below, Dr. Hain went to 4 years of medical school, 4 years of neurology residency, and 2 years of clinically relevant fellowship training. Thus, a total of 10 years of professional education.
EMAIL ADDRESS: t-hain@northwestern.edu
10/20/07 revision
The AuD is a new degree for audiologists -- the audiologists call it the "Doctor of Audiology" degree. (note 1)
Persons with this degree ask for patients to call them "Doctor ...". We think that this is often a bad idea. Here are our thoughts about it. We realize that they may be somewhat controversial.
The "AuD" degree is obtained by going to audiology school (after a bachelors degree) for 3-4 years. There are two-three years of didactic training (i.e. what formerly was called a masters degree), followed by one year of supervised experience (i.e. what we would usually call a "fellowship" in medicine). The 3-year programs (there are a few of these) are a "repackaging" of a previous training process that included a 2 year masters degree followed by a 9 month "clinical fellowship experience or year", or CFE or CFY.
Another way to get an AuD is to start with the masters level audiology degree and 4-5 years of experience, and take a set of online courses on the internet. (note 2)
This career pathway does not exist for medical doctors -- in other words, medical doctors cannot practice medicine by getting a master's degree, undergo some clinical experience, then take an online internet course. In the US, the closest situation to this is the system developed for foreign trained medical doctors. Medical doctors trained in other countries can take a certification test that allows them to proceed with a year of additional supervised clinical training (an internship), that may result in a license to practice medicine. Following this, the foreign medical graduates usually undergo an internship year which is required to be licensed, as well as another 3-5 years of residency training. In the US, clinical experience elsewhere (such as a residency in France or Spain), is not accepted in this country, and in fact foreign medical graduates generally have to repeat residency training even if they have already undergone it for many years. So, to summarize, foreign medical graduates must take a test and undergo at least an additional year of formal supervised clinical training (an internship) to be licensed to practice medicine in the US. Persons with masters degrees in audiology, who have already done the equivalent of an internship in this country (the CFY year), can become AuD's by taking online courses and a test. Overall, this system seems reasonable to us.
Nevertheless, no matter what the pathway, the AuD training process is much shorter than the training required for medical doctors. Here is a comparison table:
| Training | Medical Doctor | AuD |
| "Medical" or "Audiology" school | 4 years | 3-4 years |
| Internship and residency (not counting the specialty fellowships which are also common -- lasting another 1-2 years) | 3-5 years | none -- the previous clinical fellowship year -- similar to a medical internship -- was repackaged into the "AuD" degree. |
| Total professional training | 7-9 years | 3-4 years |
Therefore, audiologists who call themselves "doctors", have anywhere between 3-6 years less professional training than most medical doctors. They average less than half of the professional training that medical doctors have.
AuDs do the same thing as non-AuD audiologists. They test patients with hearing or balance disorders, and they sell hearing aids and support hearing aid users.
AuDs have 4-5 years less education than Ph.D. Audiologists. Ph.D. Audiologists are generally persons who obtained the (previous) masters level audiology degree, followed by a standard 4-year or so, Ph.D training in a topic related to hearing. Ph.D. audiologists generally have done significant amounts of research. Ph.D. audiologists have gone to school for roughly the same amount of time as most medical doctors, but their additional education/training is usually in hearing basic science rather than clinically oriented.
Well of course not. AuD's don't write or fill prescriptions, they didn't do a medical internship, they don't "attend" patients in the hospital, and they don't take night call.
Nevertheless, when an AuD says that they are a "doctor", in a setting in which they may be confused with a medical doctor (i.e. most of the time), there is a possibility for major misunderstandings.
AuD's that call themselves doctors can also be confused with Ph.D. audiologists.
You might ask one of them.
It doesn't benefit patients or the medical community at large. In fact, it is a disservice to patients and the medical community for AuD's to call themselves "doctors" in a multispecialty clinical setting, because they can be confused with medical doctors, who have a very different background and training.
It is very confusing for a patient in the clinic to see someone with "Dr ..." on their nametag or business card, and then to find out that they actually are a person who doesn't have general medical training.
It is difficult (and dangerous) when patients call the clinic, talk to Dr ...", and find out that they don't have the medical training needed to answer a question about their health. Most people might think it reasonable to ask a "Doctor" about their diabetes or high blood pressure (for example). However, unlike any medical doctor (who all have to take an internship to practice), AuD's generally don't have the knowledge or training to take care of either of these disorders.
In medical settings, AuD's should not call themselves "doctors". They should call themselves "audiologists".
Alternatively, AuD's, could call themselves "Au.D". I.e. -- their name tag should say XXX, Au.D. This would be a similar situation to the titles adopted by persons with the analogous pharmacology degree (PharmD), and the physical therapy degree (DPT). The advantage of this nomenclature is that AuD's could distinguish themselves from the other two types of audiology degrees in common use -- masters degree audiologists and Ph.D. audiologists.
We have no major objections to use of the "doctor" title when AuDs are interviewing for jobs or writing papers (although it is associated with ambiguity and potential misunderstanding here too). These are not clinical contexts and it is not as important if there is confusion between the various possibilities outlined above. However, it is deceptive and possibly dangerous for someone who is not a medical doctor to use this title in a clinic where medical doctors practice or in the hospital, because they can be confused with medical doctors.
1. The first Au.D. program started in 1994 at Baylor University’s College of Medicine.
2.