Comparison of Voice Therapy Outcomes: Clinic vs Telehealth.

BACKGROUND: Voice therapy provides patients with valuable exercises and techniques to optimize vocal behaviors and improve their ability to communicate effectively and efficiently. These sessions were typically held by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in clinic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SLPs were provisionally able to provide billable voice therapy services in telehealth format. There is a lack of existing research studies comparing outcomes based on the format of voice therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 101 patients who underwent voice therapy at a large academic institution in order to compare outcomes between clinic, telehealth, and mixed voice therapy formats. Demographics, dysphonia etiology, duration of symptoms, number of therapy sessions, and pre- and postvoice therapy scores using reflux symptom index (RSI), voice handicap index (VHI-10), consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V), and Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain (GRBAS) scoring were collected. Statistical comparisons were performed using Fisher's exact test and analysis of covariance. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pre- to postvoice therapy RSI, VHI-10, CAPE-V, or GRBAS scores based on format of voice therapy, after adjustment for number of therapy sessions received. There were no differences in these outcomes when comparing voice therapy by etiology of dysphonia. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these data support the effectiveness of the telehealth voice therapy format. It is a promising platform for greater patient access to therapy. All formats of voice therapy were effective in improving key measures of voice perception.

Quality tracheotomy care can be maintained for non‐COVID patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Objective(s) To analyze changes in tracheotomy practices at the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and determine if quality patient care was maintained. Methods This was a single institution retrospective study that included patients undergoing tracheotomy from May 2019 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups, pre‐COVID and post‐COVID. Only three patients tested positive for COVID‐19, and they were excluded from the study. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. Statistical analyses were performed using 2‐tailed independent t tests, Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests, Chi‐Square tests, and Kaplan–Meier curves. Results There were 118 patients in the pre‐COVID group and 91 patients in the post‐COVID group. The main indication for tracheotomy in both groups was prolonged intubation. There were no significant differences in overall length of stay, time to tracheotomy, duration of tracheotomy procedure, or time to initial tracheotomy change between the two groups. Due to protocols implemented at our institution to limit viral transmission, there were significant increases in the percent of tracheotomies performed in the OR (p = .02), and those performed via open technique (p = .04). Additionally, the median time to decannulation significantly decreased in the post‐COVID group (p = .02). Conclusion Several variables regarding the timing of patient care showed no significant differences between groups which demonstrates that quality patient care was maintained. It is important to note that this data was collected early in the Pandemic, and additional trends may become apparent over time. Level of evidence 4. The goal of this study was to determine changes in tracheotomy practice during the COVID‐19 pandemic. New protocols were appropriately followed, and quality patient care was maintained throughout the pandemic, shown by no changes in the timing of tracheotomy care for COVID negative patients.

Quality tracheotomy care can be maintained for non-COVID patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: To analyze changes in tracheotomy practices at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and determine if quality patient care was maintained. Methods: This was a single institution retrospective study that included patients undergoing tracheotomy from May 2019 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups, pre-COVID and post-COVID. Only three patients tested positive for COVID-19, and they were excluded from the study. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. Statistical analyses were performed using 2-tailed independent t tests, Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests, Chi-Square tests, and Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: There were 118 patients in the pre-COVID group and 91 patients in the post-COVID group. The main indication for tracheotomy in both groups was prolonged intubation. There were no significant differences in overall length of stay, time to tracheotomy, duration of tracheotomy procedure, or time to initial tracheotomy change between the two groups. Due to protocols implemented at our institution to limit viral transmission, there were significant increases in the percent of tracheotomies performed in the OR (p = .02), and those performed via open technique (p = .04). Additionally, the median time to decannulation significantly decreased in the post-COVID group (p = .02). Conclusion: Several variables regarding the timing of patient care showed no significant differences between groups which demonstrates that quality patient care was maintained. It is important to note that this data was collected early in the Pandemic, and additional trends may become apparent over time. Level of evidence: 4.

Best Practice Recommendations for Pediatric Otolaryngology during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To review the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on pediatric otolaryngology and provide recommendations for the management of children during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA SOURCES: Clinical data were derived from peer-reviewed primary literature and published guidelines from national or international medical organizations. Preprint manuscripts and popular media articles provided background information and illustrative examples. METHODS: Included manuscripts were identified via searches using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar, while organizational guidelines and popular media articles were identified using Google search queries. Practice guidelines were developed via consensus among all authors based on peer-reviewed manuscripts and national or international health care association guidelines. Strict objective criteria for inclusion were not used due to the rapidly changing environment surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and a paucity of rigorous empirical evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical care must be judiciously allocated to treat the most severe conditions while minimizing the risk of long-term sequelae and ensuring patient, physician, and health care worker safety. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The COVID-19 pandemic will have a profound short- and long-term impact on health care worldwide. Although the full repercussions of this disease have yet to be realized, the outlined recommendations will guide otolaryngologists in the treatment of pediatric patients in the face of an unprecedented global health crisis.

Impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on otolaryngologic surgery: Brief commentary.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a global health crisis and otolaryngologists are at increased occupational risk of contracting COVID-19. There are currently no uniform best-practice recommendations for otolaryngologic surgery in the setting of COVID-19. METHODS: We reviewed relevant publications and position statements regarding the management of otolaryngology patients in the setting of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding clinical practice during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreaks were also reviewed. RESULTS: Enhanced personal protective equipment (N95 respirator and face shield or powered air-purifying respirator, disposable cap and gown, gloves) is required for any otolaryngology patient with unknown, suspected, or positive COVID-19 status. Elective procedures should be postponed indefinitely, and clinical practice should be limited to patients with urgent or emergent needs. CONCLUSION: We summarize current best-practice recommendations for otolaryngologists to ensure safety for themselves, their clinical staff, and their patients.