Telemedicine Services Provided to Medicare Beneficiaries by Otolaryngologists in 2020.

Telemedicine utilization among otolaryngologists was rare prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand rates of telemedicine utilization by otolaryngologists amid unprecedented changes in care delivery during the pandemic. Using Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data, we performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of telemedicine services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by otolaryngologists in 2020. The total number of services and amount of reimbursement received by otolaryngologists for telemedical care increased by 52,989% and 73,147% in 2020 relative to 2019: 139,094 vs 262 services and $9.9 million vs $13,536, respectively. The mean telemedicine revenue per otolaryngologist offset only 8.8% ($9304.69) of losses from the reduction in mean in-person revenue between 2019 and 2020. Further research will be necessary to inform successful adoption of telemedicine within our field amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Decision aid and preference assessment of topical anesthesia for otolaryngology procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To determine preference patterns for topical anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy pre-coronavirus (2019 coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) pandemic and analyze outcomes based on preference, using a decision aid format. METHODS: A decision aid was developed with expert and patient input. New patients presenting to subspecialty clinics over a 2-month pre-COVID-19 period completed a pre-procedure survey about their priorities, then were asked to choose between topical oxymetazoline/lidocaine spray or none. A post-procedure outcome survey followed. RESULTS: Of 151 patients, 90.1% patients elected to have topical anesthesia. Top patient priorities were "I want the scope to be easy for the doctor" and "I want to be as comfortable as possible." Patients who strongly wanted to avoid medication (P = .002) and bad taste (P = .003) were more likely to select no spray, whereas those who wanted to avoid pain received anesthetic (P = .011). According to the post-procedure assessment, 95.4% of patients were satisfied or strongly satisfied their choice, and this did not correlate with anesthetic vs none. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preferences are easily elicited and correlate with treatment choices. Most patients chose to have topical anesthetic and were willing to tolerate side effects; however, both patients with and without topical anesthetic were satisfied with their choices. This decision aid can be used to optimize shared decision making in the otolaryngology clinic. Given the aerosolizing potential of both spray and no spray conditions, this insight may be consequential when devising office protocols for post-COVID-19 practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Aerosolization During Common Ventilation Scenarios.

Otolaryngologists are at increased risk for exposure to suspected aerosol-generating procedures during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In the present study, we sought to quantify differences in aerosol generation during common ventilation scenarios. We performed a series of 30-second ventilation experiments on porcine larynx-trachea-lung specimens. We used an optical particle sizer to quantify the number of 1- to 10-µm particles observed per 30-second period (PP30). No significant aerosols were observed with ventilation of intubated specimens (10.8 ± 2.4 PP30 vs background 9.5 ± 2.1, P = 1.0000). Simulated coughing through a tracheostomy produced 53.5 ± 25.2 PP30, significantly more than background (P = .0121) and ventilation of an intubated specimen (P = .0401). These data suggest that undisturbed ventilation and thus intubation without stimulation or coughing may be safer than believed. Coughing increases aerosol production, particularly via tracheostomy. Otolaryngologists who frequently manage patient airways and perform tracheostomy are at increased risk for aerosol exposure and require appropriate personal protective equipment, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Laryngeal complications of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and visually depict laryngeal complications in patients recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection along with associated patient characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective patient series. SETTING: Tertiary laryngology care centers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients aged 18 years or older presenting with laryngological complaints following recent COVID-19 infection were included. Patient demographics, comorbid medical conditions, COVID-19 diagnosis dates, symptoms, intubation, and tracheostomy status, along with subsequent laryngological symptoms related to voice, airway, and swallowing were collected. Findings on laryngoscopy and stroboscopy were included, if performed. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients enrolled, 65% had been intubated for an average duration of 21.8 days and 69.2% requiring prone-position mechanical ventilation. Voice-related complaints were the most common presenting symptom, followed by those related to swallowing and breathing. All patients who underwent flexible laryngoscopy demonstrated laryngeal abnormalities, most frequently in the glottis (93.8%), and those who underwent stroboscopy had abnormalities in mucosal wave (87.5%), periodicity (75%), closure (50%), and symmetry (50%). Unilateral vocal fold immobility was the most common diagnosis (40%), along with posterior glottic (15%) and subglottic (10%) stenoses. 45% of patients underwent further procedural intervention in the operating room or office. Many findings were suggestive of intubation-related injury. CONCLUSION: Prolonged intubation with prone-positioning commonly employed in COVID-19 respiratory failure can lead to significant laryngeal complications with associated difficulties in voice, airway, and swallowing. The high percentage of glottic injuries underscores the importance of stroboscopic examination. Otolaryngologists must be prepared to manage these complications in patients recovering from COVID-19. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Tracheostomy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparison of International Perioperative Care Protocols and Practices in 26 Countries.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a global surge in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, some of whom may benefit from tracheostomy. Decisions on if, when, and how to perform tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 have major implications for patients, clinicians, and hospitals. We investigated the tracheostomy protocols and practices that institutions around the world have put into place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA SOURCES: Protocols for tracheostomy in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from individual institutions (n = 59) were obtained from the United States and 25 other countries, including data from several low- and middle-income countries, 23 published or society-endorsed protocols, and 36 institutional protocols. REVIEW METHODS: The comparative document analysis involved cross-sectional review of institutional protocols and practices. Data sources were analyzed for timing of tracheostomy, contraindications, preoperative testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), surgical technique, and postoperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of tracheostomy varied from 3 to >21 days, with over 90% of protocols recommending 14 days of intubation prior to tracheostomy. Most protocols advocate delaying tracheostomy until COVID-19 testing was negative. All protocols involved use of N95 or higher PPE. Both open and percutaneous techniques were reported. Timing of tracheostomy changes ranged from 5 to >30 days postoperatively, sometimes contingent on negative COVID-19 test results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Wide variation exists in tracheostomy protocols, reflecting geographical variation, different resource constraints, and limited data to drive evidence-based care standards. Findings presented herein may provide reference points and a framework for evolving care standards.

Telemedicine Services Provided to Medicare Beneficiaries by Otolaryngologists Between 2010 and 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Clinicians are increasingly adopting telemedicine in an effort to expand patient access and efficiently deliver care. However, the extent to which otolaryngologists provide telemedicine services is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To characterize recent trends in the use of telemedicine by otolaryngologists to deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, using publicly available Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data on physicians practicing in the field of otolaryngology and benchmark specialties (dermatology and psychiatry) that provided telemedicine services to Medicare beneficiaries. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the mean annual number of telemedicine services delivered per active physician and mean annual payment per active physician for these services. Secondary outcomes included the number, setting, and complexity of telemedicine services. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018, otolaryngologists provided 2127 total telemedicine services (7 unique service types) to Medicare beneficiaries and received $88 574 in total payment for these services. During this period, the mean number of telemedicine services increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.0%, and the mean Medicare payment per otolaryngologist increased at a CAGR of 21.8%. In comparison, telemedicine use during this period generally increased at a higher rate in the fields of dermatology (mean number of services per active physician at CAGR of 13.0%; mean Medicare payment per active physician at CAGR of 12.5%) and psychiatry (mean number of services per active physician at CAGR of 25.8%; mean Medicare payment per active physician at CAGR of 26.6%). In 2018, outpatient evaluation and management visits accounted for most telemedicine services provided (337 of 353 [95.5%]) and the payments received ($17 542.13 of $18 470.47 [95.0%]) by otolaryngologists. In contrast, physicians in other specialties also provided substantial portions of telemedicine services in the inpatient (psychiatry, 18 403 of 198 478 [9.3%]; dermatology, 231 of 1034 [22.3%]) and skilled nursing facility settings (psychiatry, 14 690 of 198 478 [7.4%]; dermatology, 46 of 1034 [4.4%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that the extent to which otolaryngologists used telemedicine to deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries between 2010 and 2018 was rare. Although there was relative growth in the use of telemedicine by otolaryngologists during this period, absolute growth remained low. Policy makers and provider organizations should support otolaryngologists in the adoption of telemedicine technologies, especially while coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) viral suppression efforts necessitate prolonged restriction of physical clinic throughput.