Rhinology-specific priority setting for quality improvement: a modified Delphi study from the Quality Improvement Committee of the American Rhinologic Society

Global expert views on the diagnosis, classification and pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis in clinical practice using a modified Delphi panel technique

Background

Diagnosis, classification, and treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) varies considerably despite the availability of treatment guidelines.

Objectives

We aimed to carry out a two-part modified Delphi panel study to elucidate global expert management of AR in real life.

Methods

The modified Delphi panel study was composed of two ten-minute online questionnaires sent to global AR experts, aiming to identify areas of consensus (defined as >75% respondent agreement) on aspects of their real-world daily practice related to AR diagnosis, classification, and pharmacotherapy. A workshop discussion with respondents held after the first-round questionnaire informed the development of the second-round questionnaire.

Results

Eighteen experts (from 7 countries across 3 continents) completed both questionnaires in September-October 2021 and January 2022, respectively. The majority of respondents agreed that diagnosis of AR is best confirmed using a mixture of observation and testing (n = 15) and collaborating with colleagues across other specialties (n = 14). Experts agreed that severity (n = 18), upper/lower respiratory tract involvement (n = 15) and symptom frequency (n = 14) are important factors when classifying AR, however consensus was not reached on which classification tool should be used. Although there were mixed opinions on the preferred pharmacotherapy treatment in the presented case studies, respondents largely agreed on which treatments require less monitoring (intranasal corticosteroid therapies [INCS]) and when treatments should be stepped down (≤3 months). Although opinions varied across respondents, some respondents considered as-needed INCS treatment and surgery to be viable treatment options.

Conclusion

We identified clear differences between real-world practice and treatment guidelines related to the management of AR. Furthermore, we recognized differences among physicians concerning their clinical practice in the pharmacological treatment of AR. These findings highlight the need for greater research into the management of AR and further indicate there is still a major gap between treatment guidelines and daily practice, even among specialists, suggesting a need for local guideline adaptation and implementation plans.

What is the optimal outcome after endoscopic sinus surgery in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis? A consultation of Canadian experts

OBJECTIVES

Many experts feel that in the absence of well-defined goals for success, they have an easier time identifying failure. As success ought to not be defined only by absence of failure, we aimed to define optimal outcomes for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) by obtaining expert surgeon perspectives.

METHODS

A total of 12 surgeons participated in this targeted consultation. Face to face semi-structured interviews were performed with expert surgeons in the field of CRS and ESS. General impressions and personal definitions of acceptable operative success and optimal operative outcomes were compiled and summarized.

RESULTS

According to an expert survey, patients' main objectives are an improvement in their chief complain, a general improvement in quality of life (QoL), and a better overall symptomatic control. The most important aspects of endoscopy for defining a successful intervention were an adequate mucus circulation, a healthy mucosa, minimal edema, and patency of all explored cavities or ostia. In the assessment of surgical outcomes, it was determined that both objective and patient reported data must be carefully examined, with more attention given to subjective outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

According to data gathered from a Canadian expert consultation, a definition of success must be based on both subjective data and nasal endoscopy. We propose to define an acceptable outcome as either a subjective improvement of at least the minimal clinically improvement difference of a validated patient reported outcome questionnaire, along with a satisfactory endoscopic result (1) or a complete subjective resolution with a sub-optimal endoscopy (2).

Patient perspectives on endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis

Background

Through shared decision-making, physicians and patients can elect endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) when maximal medical therapy fails in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). In this study, we aim to explore the most important themes with regards to patients’ perspectives on ESS. Our objective was to define the patient experience and ensure that we have congruent physician and patient goals for obtaining success.

Methods

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 22 patients at a tertiary-care institution in Montreal. Three themes were established a priori: living with CRS, objectives and expectations and criteria for success. This thematic approach allowed the identification, analysis and reporting of patterns found across the data set. A phenomenological methodological orientation was used. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for continuous analysis. These were coded by hand by a single coder who read the transcripts multiple times and relistened to the recordings.

Results

Exploration of themes on patients’ perspectives on ESS for CRS yielded multiple anecdotal findings, and some recurring patterns. There is a tendency for patients to focus on one principal symptom that drives their decrease in QoL. Headaches and nasal congestion seemed to impact patients’ QoL the most amongst rhinologic symptoms. Hyposmia was rarely spontaneously by patients but was often a significant source of distress when prompted during interviews. Objectives and expectations seemed to be inversely proportional to number of previous surgeries and severity of symptoms preoperatively. There was a clear association between preoperative expectations and postoperative satisfaction. There was no clear pattern in the improvement magnitude or time improved postoperatively for patients to consider the surgery a success.

Conclusions

Patients’ level of satisfaction postoperatively and with their care in general is multifactorial. We believe the topic of goals and expectations regarding ESS should be discussed preoperatively for every patient with CRS. This includes patients with seemingly minor disease and patients naive to surgery, as can sometimes have exceedingly high expectations. Preoperative counselling must also include an assessment of what symptom is the most cumbersome to that particular patient, as patients tend to focus a lot on one or two symptoms. Postoperatively, we encourage clinicians to be attentive to the change in each patient’s principal complaints within the context of a personalized approach and to refer back to patients’ preoperative goals in their assessment of operative success.

Graphical abstract

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document.

METHODS

ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary.

RESULTS

ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided.

CONCLUSION

This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

Acute Exacerbations in Recurrent Acute Rhinosinusitis: Differences in Quality of Life and Endoscopy

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Research surrounding outcome differences for patients with recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS) is scarce. This investigation explored quality of life (QOL) and sinonasal attributes in patients during acute episodes (AEs) and in-between AEs of RARS.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective outcomes research.

METHODS

Data from patients with RARS were collected from two academic institutions between 2009 and 2017 using prospective and retrospective methodology. During clinical presentation, subjects were classified as with or without an AEs using guideline definitions of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS). Between-group differences in 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) survey and Lund-Kennedy (LK) endoscopy scores were assessed.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-three clinical visits from 202 patients were included. Visits during an AE (168/423, 40%) were associated with significantly worse SNOT-22 total scores compared to between AEs (255/423, 60%; median = 53.0 [interquartile range (IQR) = 24.0] vs. 34.0 [IQR = 29.5]) and all SNOT-22 subdomain scores (all P < .001). LK scores were available for 167 visits, with 56 (34%) completed during an AE. Compared to visits without an AE, endoscopy findings associated with an AE were less frequently normal (LK score = 0, 45% vs. 62%, P = .031) with worse median LK scores (2.0 [IQR = 4.0] vs. 0.0 [IQR = 2.0], P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

AEs are associated with significantly worse QOL and mildly worse endoscopic findings. Almost half of visits during AEs had negative endoscopy, identifying a disparity between patient symptoms and objective findings and calling into question alternative or concomitant diagnoses. Diagnostic criteria for ABRS or AEs in RARS do not require objective confirmation of inflammation, presenting a conundrum for clinicians. The potential for overdiagnosis of ABRS and AEs should be considered when determining the risk/benefit ratio of treatments for RARS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c Laryngoscope, 2019.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis

Background

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is a highly prevalent disease that is treated by a variety of specialties, including but not limited to, family physicians, emergency physicians, otolaryngology—head and neck surgeons, infectious disease specialists, and allergy and immunologists. Unfortunately, despite high-quality guidelines, variable and substandard care continues to be demonstrated in the treatment of ABRS.

Objective

This study aimed to develop ABRS-specific quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate the diagnosis and management that reduces symptoms, improves quality of life, and prevents complications.

Methods

A guideline-based approach, proposed by Kötter et al., was used to develop QIs for ABRS. Candidate indicators (CIs) were extracted from 4 guiding documents and evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Each CI and its supporting evidence was summarized and reviewed by an expert panel based on validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement. Final QIs were selected from CIs utilizing the modified RAND/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness methodology.

Results

Twenty-nine CIs were identified after literature review and evaluated by our panel. Of these, 5 CIs reached consensus as being appropriate QIs, with 1 requiring additional discussion. After a second round of evaluations, the panel selected 7 QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care.

Conclusion

This study proposes 7 QIs for the diagnosis and management of patients with ABRS. These QIs can serve multiple purposes, including documenting the quality of care; comparing institutions and providers; prioritizing quality improvement initiatives; supporting accountability, regulation, and accreditation; and determining pay for performance initiatives.

Appropriateness Criteria for Surgery in the Management of Adult Recurrent Acute Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is frequently performed for recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS). Appropriate indications for surgery among patients with RARS have not yet been rigorously determined. The objective of this study was to define appropriateness criteria for ESS in the management of adult RARS.

STUDY DESIGN

Application of RAND-UCLA appropriateness methodology.

METHODS

A panel of nine multidisciplinary experts in RARS was formed to evaluate RARS scenarios generated from current evidence. The panel completed two rounds of a modified Delphi-ranking process and a teleconference.

RESULTS

A total of 32 clinical scenarios were ranked in each round. For adult patients with RARS, ESS can appropriately be offered as a treatment option when patients experience ≥ four annual episodes, and there is confirmation of at least one episode via computed tomography or nasal endoscopy, and the patient and clinician jointly participate in shared decision making, and the patient has either failed a trial of topical nasal steroids or experienced RARS-related productivity loss.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has defined appropriateness criteria for ESS as a management option for adult patients with RARS. These criteria are intended to represent a minimum threshold for which ESS should be considered in the treatment of RARS and do not suggest that all patients who meet these criteria should undergo surgery. These criteria may serve as a baseline set of indications for ESS in patients with RARS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 129:37-44, 2019.

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and management of chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) has been identified as a high-priority disease category for quality improvement. To this end, this study aimed to develop CRS-specific quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate diagnosis and management that relieves patient discomfort, improves quality of life, and prevents complications.

METHODS

A guideline-based approach, proposed in 2012 by Kötter et al. was used to develop QIs for CRS. Candidate indicators (CIs) were extracted from 3 practice guidelines and 1 international consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of CRS. Guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Each CI and its supporting evidence was summarized and reviewed by an expert panel based on validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement. Final QIs were selected from CIs utilizing the modified RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness methodology.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine CIs were identified after literature review and evaluated by our panel. Of these, 9 CIs reached consensus as being appropriate QIs, with 4 requiring additional discussion. After a second round of evaluations, the panel selected 9 QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care.

CONCLUSION

This study proposes 9 QIs for the diagnosis and management of patients with CRS. These QIs can serve multiple purposes, including documenting the quality of care; comparing institutions and providers; prioritizing quality improvement initiatives; supporting accountability, regulation, and accreditation; and determining pay-for-performance initiatives.