Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35135752›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2022

Delivery of remote otology care: a UK pilot feasibility study.

Cillian T Forde, Lilia Dimitrov, Suneal Doal, Jay Patel, Dawn Clare, Michael Burslem, Nishchay Mehta, Joseph G Manjaly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A retrospective cohort study of telephone versus face-to-face clinics for the management of new otology referrals.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
    Article
  2. Ear wax management in primary care: what the busy GP needs to know.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cillian T Forde *ENT Department, Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2017-2056
Lilia Dimitrov *ENT Department, Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3959-7292
Suneal DoalDepartment of Audiology, Royal National ENT & Eastman Dental Hospitals, London, UK.
Jay PatelDepartment of Audiology, Royal National ENT & Eastman Dental Hospitals, London, UK.
Dawn ClareDepartment of Audiology, Royal National ENT & Eastman Dental Hospitals, London, UK.
Michael BurslemENT Department, Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK.
Nishchay MehtaENT Department, Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK.
Joseph G ManjalyENT Department, Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK joseph.manjaly@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has catalysed the need to implement the National Health Service Long-Term Plan to deliver more care in the community and to reduce face-to-face hospital appointments by up to 33%. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a remote otology service from triage through to delivery.

methodsNew adult otology referrals at a tertiary ear, nose and throat (ENT) hospital aged between 18 and 70 with hearing loss or tinnitus were included. Patients attended an audiology-led community clinic where they underwent a focused history, audiometric testing, and a smartphone-based application and otoscope (Tympa System) was used to capture still and video images of their eardrums. The information was reviewed by ENT clinicians using a remote review platform with a subset of patients subsequently undergoing an in-person review to measure concordance between the two assessments.

results58 patients participated. 75% of patients had their pathways shortened by one hospital visit with 65% avoiding any hospital attendances. 24% required an additional face-to-face appointment due to incomplete views of the tympanic membrane or need for additional examinations. Electronic validation by a blinded consultant otologist demonstrated a diagnosis concordance of 95%, and concordance between remote-review and in-person consultations in the 12 patients who agreed to attend for an in-person review was 83.3%. 98% of patients were satisfied with the pathway.

conclusionThis pilot service is feasible, safe and non-inferior to the traditional outpatient model in the included patient group. There is potential for the development of a community audiology-led service or use for general practioner advice and guidance.

Indexed as

COVID-19OtolaryngologyAdolescentAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2State MedicineUnited KingdomYoung AdultCOVID-19outpatientsquality improvementtelemedicinewaiting lists

Identifiers

PMID35135752
PMCPMC8830265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.