A retrospective cohort study of telephone versus face-to-face clinics for the management of new otology referrals.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of telephone and face-to-face consultations for new otology referrals and discuss the wider use of telemedicine in otology. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including new adult otology referrals to our unit, sampled consecutively between March 2021 and May 2021, seen in either a face-to-face or telephone clinic. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a definitive management outcome (discharged or added to waiting list for treatment) versus the proportion of patients requiring follow-up for further assessment or review. RESULTS: 150 new patients referred for a routine otology consultation (75 telephone, 75 face-to-face) were included. 53/75 patients (71%) undergoing a face-to-face consultation received a definitive outcome following initial review, versus 22/75 (29%) telephone patients (χ2 < 0.001, OR 5.8). 52/75 (69%) telephone patients were followed up face-to-face for examination. The mean (SD) number of appointments required to reach a definitive outcome was 1.22 (0.58) and 1.75 (0.73) in the face-to-face and telephone cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone clinics in otology have played an important role as part of the COVID19 response. However, they are currently limited by a lack of clinical examination and audiometry. Remote assessment pathways in otology that incorporate asynchronous review of recorded examinations alongside audiometry, either conventional or boothless, may mitigate this problem; however, further research is required.

Introduction of a novel telescopic pathway to streamline 2-week-wait suspected head and neck cancer referrals and improve efficiency: A prospective service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: This study summarizes the introduction of a novel telescopic pathway, which streamlines 2-week-wait suspected head and neck cancer referrals to our unit, describes the logistics of the pathway, and analyzes referral numbers and outcomes. We also discuss wider issues surrounding remote assessment in head and neck cancer. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively between January and May 2021, capturing all 2-week-wait referrals to our unit following the introduction of a telescopic pathway which utilized a nurse-led clinic for nasendoscopic examination of selected patients and consultant-led remote assessment using store and forward technology. Information on referral numbers, waiting times and outcomes was recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty (185 high risk, 155 low risk) patients entered the telescopic pathway with the remaining 74 patients seen on the conventional standard of care pathway. Cancer conversion rates were 17%, <1%, and 5.4% for the high-risk telescopic, low-risk telescopic and standard of care pathways respectively. No patients discharged from the telescopic pathway were re-referred within 3 months. Review capacity for endoscopic examination was higher per consultant on the telescopic pathway versus the standard of care (p = .01). CONCLUSION: A combination of risk stratification and asynchronous telescopic assessment shows promise for the management of suspected head and neck cancer referrals. Potential benefits include consultant-led care for all patients and enhanced documentation. Digital communication with patients may also assist with adherence to the new NHS 28-day diagnostic standard for cancer referrals. Ongoing data collection is required to assess how the pathway functions over a longer period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.