Lee, Jivianne

ObjectiveTo develop a clinical consensus statement on the use of balloon dilation of the eustachian tube (BDET).MethodsAn expert panel of otolaryngologists was assembled with nominated representatives of general otolaryngology and relevant subspecialty societies. The target population was adults 18 years or older who are candidates for BDET because of obstructive eustachian tube dysfunction (OETD) in 1 or both ears for 3 months or longer that significantly affects quality of life or functional health status. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion into clinical statements that met a standardized definition of consensus.ResultsAfter 3 iterative Delphi method surveys, 28 statements met the predefined criteria for consensus, while 28 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 3 categories for the purposes of presentation and discussion: (1) patient criteria, (2) perioperative considerations, and (3) outcomes.ConclusionThis panel reached consensus on several statements that clarify diagnosis and perioperative management of OETD. Lack of consensus on other statements likely reflects knowledge gaps regarding the role of BDET in managing OETD. Expert panel consensus may provide helpful information for the otolaryngologist considering the use of BDET for the management of patients with OETD.

BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is garnering increasing attention. Defining frameworks and metrics to assess the quality of key components in CRS management could assist in reducing unwarranted practice variation and increase high‐quality care.MethodsA panel of the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) QI committee reviewed the literature to determine important presurgical components of CRS care that warrant QI. The evidence was organized into 4 categories: (1) diagnosis, (2) medical management, (3) appropriate patient selection for surgery, and (4) patient‐centered discussion. The combination of these categories was used to develop a framework termed the CRS Appropriate Presurgical Algorithm (CAPA).ResultsPrior to offering surgery for CRS, the best available evidence support the following quality metrics: (1) a guideline‐based diagnosis should be confirmed; (2) appropriate medical management, including a minimum of topical corticosteroid therapy and saline irrigations, should have been attempted (assuming patient tolerance); (3) a computed tomography (CT) scan should be obtained (to confirm the presence of sinus inflammation and for surgical planning); and (4) a patient‐centered discussion regarding treatment options for refractory CRS (ie, alternative medical therapies vs surgery vs observation) while focusing on risks and benefits, the need for long‐term medical compliance, and understanding of patient preferences and expectations.ConclusionDefining metrics that assess key components to CRS care prior to offering surgery has the potential to further improve upon an already successful treatment paradigm, reduce unwarranted practice variation, and to ensure that patients are receiving a similar level of high‐quality care.

BackgroundImproving the quality of healthcare is a complex and resource intensive process. To optimize the allocation of scarce resources, quality improvement (QI) should focus on high‐value diseases that will produce the largest improvement in health system performance. Given the breadth and multidisciplinary nature of sinonasal disease management, the purpose of this study was to transparently develop a prioritized list of sinonasal diseases for QI from the perspective of the specialty of rhinology and the American Rhinologic Society (ARS).MethodsThe RAND modified Delphi methodology was used to rank the priority of nine sinonasal disease categories from 1 (lowest priority) to 9 (highest priority). Two rounds of ranking along with a teleconference meeting was performed by a panel of 9 experts from the ARS Quality Improvement Committee.ResultsThe final QI‐prioritized list of sinonasal diseases are as follows: chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) (mean score = 8.9), recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS) (mean score = 7.9), sinonasal neoplasms (mean score = 7.0), anatomic nasal obstruction (mean score = 5.9), refractory epistaxis (mean score = 5.2), complicated acute rhinosinusitis (mean score = 5.2), chronic nonallergic rhinitis (mean score = 4.4), orbital disease (mean score = 4.3), uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis (mean score = 4.1), and allergy/allergic rhinitis (mean score = 3.7).ConclusionThe three most important disease categories for QI from the perspective of the specialty of rhinology were CRS, RARS, and sinonasal neoplasms. Future studies need to define and validate quality metrics for each of these important disease categories in order to facilitate appropriate measurement and improvement initiatives.

BackgroundMeasuring quality outcomes is an important prerequisite to improve quality of care. Rhinosinusitis represents a high value target to improve quality of care because it has a high prevalence of disease, large economic burden, and large practice variation. In this study we review the current state of quality measurement for management of both acute (ARS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).MethodsThe major national quality metric repositories and clearinghouses were queried. Additional searches included the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery database, PubMed, and Google to attempt to capture any additional quality metrics.ResultsSeven quality metrics for ARS and 4 quality metrics for CRS were identified. ARS metrics focused on appropriateness of diagnosis (n = 1), antibiotic prescribing (n = 4), and radiologic imaging (n = 2). CRS quality metrics focused on appropriateness of diagnosis (n = 1), radiologic imaging (n = 1), and measurement of patient quality of life (n = 2). The Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) currently tracks 3 ARS quality metrics and 1 CRS quality metric. There are no outcome‐based rhinosinusitis quality metrics and no metrics that assess domains of safety, patient‐centeredness, and timeliness of care.ConclusionsThe current status of quality measurement for rhinosinusitis has focused primarily on the quality domain of efficiency and process measures for ARS. More work is needed to develop, validate, and track outcome‐based quality metrics along with CRS‐specific metrics. Although there has been excellent work done to improve quality measurement for rhinosinusitis, there remain major gaps and challenges that need to be considered during the development of future metrics.