Macielak, Robert James

AbstractObjectiveTo report the first steps of a project to automate and optimize scheduling of multidisciplinary consultations for patients with longstanding dizziness utilizing artificial intelligence.Study DesignRetrospective case review.SettingQuaternary referral center.MethodsA previsit self‐report questionnaire was developed to query patients about their complaints of longstanding dizziness. We convened an expert panel of clinicians to review diagnostic outcomes for 98 patients and used a consensus approach to retrospectively determine what would have been the ideal appointments based on the patient's final diagnoses. These results were then compared retrospectively to the actual patient schedules. From these data, a machine learning algorithm was trained and validated to automate the triage process.ResultsCompared with the ideal itineraries determined retrospectively with our expert panel, visits scheduled by the triage clinicians showed a mean concordance of 70%, and our machine learning algorithm triage showed a mean concordance of 79%.ConclusionManual triage by clinicians for dizzy patients is a time‐consuming and costly process. The formulated first‐generation automated triage algorithm achieved similar results to clinicians when triaging dizzy patients using data obtained directly from an online previsit questionnaire.

AbstractObjectivesSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single‐use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured.MethodsEighteen residents performed consults with both single‐use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five‐question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12‐week period using a five‐point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four‐point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems.ResultsSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, p < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1, p < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6, p < .001). Residents rated single‐use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68, p < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89, p = .003), while patients rated single‐use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001).ConclusionResident and patient experience feedback favored single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults.Level of Evidence4.