Citations

ABSTRACTObjective(s)We aim to identify the diversity of barriers to care for otolaryngology‐head and neck surgery patients in Harare, Zimbabwe.MethodsInterviews were conducted at four general otolaryngology clinics in Harare in October 2022.The patient population included children and adults presenting to either government or private clinics. Via interpreter, six standardized questions were discussed with each patient. Survey responses were used to categorize patients into one or more of three types of delays: (1) deciding to seek care, (2) reaching the appropriate healthcare facility, and (3) receiving adequate care after reaching that facility.ResultsForty‐six patients participated in this survey. The average time from problem presentation to treatment in this population was 16.3 months. Twenty‐six percent of patients experienced more than one type of delay. The most common type of delay was Type 3 (67%). Many of these patients reached appropriate facilities but could not receive timely treatment due to lengthy wait times. Type 1 delays affected 35% of patients. Notable causes were fear of doctors, preference for traditional healing, or ignorance to a treatable problem. Type 2 delays were also reported in 37%, commonly due to long distance and time to travel and insufficient finances for these journeys.ConclusionsENT patients in Zimbabwe experience a myriad of delays to receiving appropriate care. Systemic issues, including backlogged surgical lists, convoluted referral patterns, and poor transportation infrastructure, are significant contributors to patient delays. The 3‐delay model is useful for identifying barriers to care for future efforts to improve patient access to safe and affordable surgical care.Level of EvidenceLevel VI.

ABSTRACTImportanceHighlighting the global disparities in otolaryngology training and, ultimately, service delivery, emphasizing the need for equitable access to training resources and programs.ObjectiveTo describe the relationship between the quality, content, and location of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery training and education and the resulting impact on the delivery of otolaryngology care globally.DesignAn online cross‐sectional survey to otolaryngologists, gathering information on their training and education experiences, and factors influencing their choice of training location and practice.SettingThe online survey was available in multiple languages, distributed via national and international professional otolaryngology societies, snowballing and social media.ParticipantsThe respondents were practicing otolaryngologists representing all seven World Health Organization regions.ExposuresWorld Bank income groups classification.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOur expected outcome was that subspecialty training and access to educational resources were significantly readily available to respondents from high‐income countries, leading to more confidence in performing complex procedures post training.ResultsA total of 91 participants were included in the analysis, with 47 (52%) practicing in high‐income countries and 44 (48%) in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Sixty‐one participants (67%) were male. Subspecialty training and access to educational resources were significantly less available in low‐ and middle‐income countries, leading to lower confidence among low‐ and middle‐income countries physicians in performing complex procedures. High‐income country respondents reported better access to diverse training resources and felt more prepared for a broader range of procedures.Conclusion and RelevanceSignificant disparities exist in OHNS training resources and subspecialty training opportunities between high‐ and low‐middle‐income countries. There is a critical need to integrate complementary training and educational modalities into local systems. Addressing the shortage of educational resources and promoting open‐access initiatives in low‐middle‐income countries are essential steps toward enhancing surgical education and improving global otolaryngology healthcare outcomes.

Background: The incidence of pediatric thyroid cancer has been increasing, and care varies due to socioeconomic disparities or differing practice patterns. Clinical guidelines call for care in multidisciplinary teams to minimize variance and provide protocols. Based on expert opinion, we hope to describe the form and function of such multidisciplinary teams for pediatric thyroid programs. Methods: A modified Delphi method to reach consensus statements over two rounds. Twenty-one experts with varying backgrounds responded to each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. Upon completion of the survey, the panel reviewed and shared the results and comments from participants and modified the statements accordingly. This process was repeated such that statements reached consensus, were deemed no consensus, or had no change in the mean. Results: There was an 88% and 83% completion rate for Rounds 1 and 2, respectively. A consensus was observed that there is a distinct definable model of care for pediatric thyroid patients. No consensus was reached for the age range of patients, but programs should care for children with medullary thyroid cancer, differentiated thyroid cancer, and patients with genetic predisposition syndromes. A comprehensive team includes, but is not limited to, a thyroid surgeon, a pediatric endocrinologist, a high-volume fine-needle aspiration (FNA) proceduralist, an oncologist, a nuclear medicine physician, a pediatric pathologist, a pediatric radiologist, and a nurse coordinator. Necessary support services involve care coordination, access to a multidisciplinary tumor board, ability to perform ultrasound-guided FNA, and access to molecular testing. The panel emphasized cross-institutional collaborative research prioritizing guidelines development, disease-specific outcomes, treatment toxicity, and the molecular landscape of thyroid cancer. Conclusions: These consensus statements can be beneficial in improving multidisciplinary care, by describing which elements of pediatric thyroid programs should be consistent across institutions. Overall, the panel agreed that pediatric thyroid centers should provide integrated care with defined team members, services, resources, and research priorities. This model has the potential to standardize various aspects of clinical care and enhance our ability to study patient outcomes, improve health care delivery, and increase scholarly collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) regarding assessing patient and quality-of-care outcomes is increasingly recognized within spine surgery, the benefits and challenges associated with the collection and clinical use of PROs remain to be established. The aim of this review was to discuss the published evidence on the wealth of clinically relevant data provided by PRO measures within spine surgery. METHODS: The peer-reviewed literature was searched for articles investigating the value of PRO data within spine surgery. Articles evaluating the collection and clinical use of PRO data within spine surgery, especially about monitoring clinical and quality-of-care outcomes, were critically analyzed. RESULTS: Although postoperative outcomes after spine surgery previously relied on the physician's evaluation of a patient's physical recovery, in 1978, a new evaluation scheme for patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis shifted the weight of postoperative outcome evaluation from objective physical measures to measures that depended on the party performing the evaluation, including the physician, patient, or family. Currently, several standardized PRO scales whose performance has been rigorously investigated in validation studies are used to assess patients' perception of pain and functional and psychometric outcomes after spine surgery. Overall, the benefits of using PROs in these patients include establishing patient involvement in their care, strengthening patient-provider rapport, and promoting patient-centered care, while further standardizing patient outcomes by incorporating the self-reported aspect of clinical outcomes into standardized outcome measures and creating a framework for further quality outcomes research and health care policymaking. CONCLUSION: Physician-reported outcomes are often unable to provide a comprehensive evaluation of clinical and quality-of-care outcomes within spine surgery. Incorporation of PROs in patient evaluation is an integral part of efforts aimed at achieving excellence in health care delivery, as PROs help gain insight into individual patients' experiences and integrate an appraisal of patients' perspectives into clinical practice.

Abstract Enterocutaneous fistulas (ECF) are challenging to treat contributing to high morbidity and high mortality rates, significantly impacting the quality of life of the patients. Its susceptibility to antibiotic‐resistant infections often leads to chronic inflammation, complicating treatment with conventional methods. Here, 18NC75‐10P‐1IL is reported, which is a multi‐functional shear‐thinning hydrogel comprised of gelatin and nanosilicates for injectability, an ionic liquid for bactericidal effects, and platelet rich fibrin fraction for pro‐healing properties; this biomaterial is engineered for the treatment of ECFs. Through rigorous testing, the mechanical properties of 18NC75‐10P‐1IL were tailored for catheter injection to achieve durable occlusion of fistulous tracts under external pressures simulating clinical scenarios. 18NC75‐10P‐1IL demonstrated pro‐healing effects and anti‐microbial activity against highly resistant patient‐derived bacteria known to be associated with ECF. Subcutaneous implantation and anorectal fistula models confirmed its biocompatibility, pro‐healing, anti‐inflammatory, and anti‐microbial properties compared to control materials, suggesting promising potential for clinical translation in the treatment of human ECFs.

ABSTRACT Objective Availability of surgical equipment and access to essential clinical services remains an important barrier to surgical care delivery, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). This study aims to characterize the relative availability of essential equipment for otolaryngology‐head and neck surgery (OHNS) care across World Bank income groups. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional survey on otolaryngologists' perceptions on the availability of surgical equipment and ancillary services in their respective practice settings per a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from never to always available. The study was disseminated online via professional societies, personal contacts, and social media. Eligible participants included otolaryngologists from 194 WHO‐recognized countries, which were grouped by World Bank income group classification and WHO region. Results The study involved 146 otolaryngologists, 69 (47%) from high‐income countries (HICs), and 77 (53%) from LMICs. LMIC respondents were predominantly from the African and South‐East Asian regions, which comprised 48% and 7.8% of all LMIC respondents, respectively. Results revealed significant differences in the availability of otologic, rhinologic, and endoscopic airway equipment between HICs and LMICs. Differences existed among commonly used equipment such as tympanomastoidectomy equipment and rigid bronchoscopy, to subspecialized equipment such as functional endoscopic sinus surgery equipment and cochlear implants ( p < 0.05 each). Conclusions The study highlighted key disparities in the availability of essential equipment for baseline OHNS care, especially for pediatric airway and otologic conditions. These results can be used to guide investment and advocacy efforts to improve specialty‐specific surgical infrastructure relative to the global burden of OHNS diseases in low‐resource settings. Level of Evidence 3