Citations

AbstractObjectiveCritical components of the nasal endoscopic examination have not been definitively established for either the normal examination or for clinical disorders. This study aimed to identify concordance among rhinologists regarding the importance of examination findings for various nasal pathologies.Study DesignA consortium of 19 expert rhinologists across the United States was asked to rank the importance of findings on nasal endoscopy for 5 different sinonasal symptom presentations.SettingAn online questionnaire was distributed in July 2023.MethodsThe questionnaire utilized JotForm® software and featured 5 cases with a set of 4 identical questions per case, each covering a common indication for nasal endoscopy. Rankings were synthesized into Normalized Attention Scores (NASs) and Weighted Normalized Attention Scores (W‐NASs) to represent the perceived importance of each feature, scaled from 0 to 1.ResultsGeneral concordance was found for examination findings on nasal endoscopy within each case. The perceived features of importance differed between cases based on clinical presentation. For instance, in evaluating postnasal drip, the middle meatus was selected as the most important structure to examine (NAS, 0.73), with mucus selected as the most important abnormal finding (W‐NAS, 0.66). The primary feature of interest for mucus was whether it was purulent or not (W‐NAS, 0.67). Similar analyses were performed for features in each case.ConclusionThe implicit framework existing among rhinologists may help standardize examinations and improve diagnostic accuracy, augment the instruction of trainees, and inform the development of artificially intelligent algorithms to enhance clinical decision‐making during nasal endoscopy.

Abstract Background The literature regarding clinical olfaction, olfactory loss, and olfactory dysfunction has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with an exponential rise in the past year. There is substantial variability in the quality of this literature and a need to consolidate and critically review the evidence. It is with that aim that we have gathered experts from around the world to produce this International Consensus on Allergy and Rhinology: Olfaction (ICAR:O). Methods Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to olfaction. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence‐based review, or evidence‐based review with recommendations format as dictated by available evidence and scope within the ICAR:O document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:O document was integrated and reviewed by all authors for final consensus. Results The ICAR:O document reviews nearly 100 separate topics within the realm of olfaction, including diagnosis, epidemiology, disease burden, diagnosis, testing, etiology, treatment, and associated pathologies. Conclusion This critical review of the existing clinical olfaction literature provides much needed insight and clarity into the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with olfactory dysfunction, while also clearly delineating gaps in our knowledge and evidence base that we should investigate further.

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.