Co-secretary Barbara O'Neill said yesterday the Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner's report released last week into failings in one boy's care rekindled anger and frustration felt by many parents over many years.
''There are so many people traumatised out there.''
Theo Baker found the health board and the audiologist breached the patient rights code because of a delay in diagnosing the boy's moderate to profound hearing loss.
He was tested five times over 11 years with no diagnosis.
The association is still concerned that, despite improvements, audiology is not resourced well enough, given the service now covers Otago and Southland.
The association wrote to the board in 2005, following up in subsequent years, expressing concern at the lack of progress.
The average age of diagnosis in Otago was high by New Zealand standards, and the country's average diagnosis rate was itself ''abysmal'', Mrs O'Neill said.
The association had also been concerned about the lack of support for the sole charge audiologist, and the standard of equipment.
The audiologist was not a member of the New Zealand Audiological Society, which the board told the deputy commissioner was ''principally'' the cause of the issues.
This meant the board had an uncertified audiologist for about 25 years, Mrs O'Neill said.
Mrs O'Neill and association co-secretary Peg Makinson said yesterday the department's shortcomings were well known for years throughout the sector.
''I would write a letter, and then I would telephone, email, telephone, email ... '' Mrs Makinson said.
There would be long delays in securing meetings.
Frequent changes in management compounded the problem.
At one stage, the board showed it had reduced waiting times for assessments, yet this was not the central problem.
Parents who understood the system (often because they had other deaf members in the family) sought diagnosis at another DHB.
Parents had the right to a decent service, and should not need to push their way through the system, Mrs O'Neill said.
The situation strained some relationships, because mothers and fathers often differed on whether their child had a hearing problem, or was just ''naughty'', Mrs Makinson said.
''There is so much stress develops. You get unsure of yourself,'' Mrs O'Neill said.
Feedback from association parents in recent days indicated they were concerned the board did not retest enough children when the problem became known.
The board offered retesting to children seen between 2007 and 2010. Many parents did not complain once they finally had a diagnosis, because they needed to focus their energy on their child, Mrs O'Neill said.
In response, patient services medical director Richard Bunton said in a statement yesterday the board would contact the association to discuss its concerns.
''The DHB has acknowledged there were deficiencies in the level of audiology services provided and has worked hard to rectify those issues so that we now have a service that has been commended and that the community can have confidence in,'' Mr Bunton said.
The retesting period was set to catch those who would not have been screened through another avenue, such as the B4 School Checks, he said.
''However, as we have said previously, if there are any parents who have concerns about their child's hearing or the testing they received, we encourage them to contact the DHB.
''The audiology team are all NZAS-certified audiologists. It includes one full-time and two part-time audiologists.
''Following other improvements to the service, better equipment, more efficient booking and prioritisation processes, the team is well supported to provide a high-quality service across the district.''
The Health and Disability Commissioner's director of proceedings is reviewing the matter, and may take the audiologist and/or the health board to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
