Ear Portal: An urban-based ear, nose, and throat, and audiology referral telehealth portal to improve access to specialist ear-health services for children.

INTRODUCTION: Shortage of ear, nose, and throat specialists in public hospitals can result in delays in the detection and management of otitis media. This study introduced a new hospital-based telehealth service, named the Ear Portal, and investigated its role in improving access to specialist care. METHODS: The study included 87 children (aged 6 months to 6 years) referred to a tertiary children's hospital due to otitis media-related concerns. A specialist multidisciplinary team met fortnightly to review pre-recorded data and provide care plans. RESULTS: The service resulted in a median waiting time of 28 days to receive a diagnosis and care plan by the multidisciplinary team, compared to a mean waiting time of 450 days for a reference group receiving standard healthcare services. Most children (90.3%) received bilateral ear diagnosis. Normal findings were found in 43.9%. However, the majority required further ear, nose, and throat with or without audiology face-to-face follow-up due to a diagnosis of middle-ear disease, unknown hearing status, or concerns not related to ears. The mean time required for clinical assessments completion by research assistants and multidisciplinary team review was 37.6 and 5.1 min per participant, respectively. DISCUSSION: Children in the Ear Portal service received a diagnosis and care plan in a median of 28 days, which is within the clinically recommended timeframes. With sufficient clinical information, this service can provide faster access to specialist care than the standard healthcare pathway. The service can reduce the time required by the specialist to provide a diagnosis and care plan which may help increase the specialists' capacity.

Clinician-rated quality of video otoscopy recordings and still images for the asynchronous assessment of middle-ear disease.

INTRODUCTION: Video otoscopy plays an important role in improving access to ear health services. This study investigated the clinician-rated quality of video otoscopy recordings and still images, and compared their suitability for asynchronous diagnosis of middle-ear disease. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty video otoscopy image-recording pairs were collected from 150 children (aged six months to 15 years) by an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist, audiologists, and trained research assistants, and independently rated by an audiologist and ENT surgeon. On a five-point scale, clinicians rated the cerumen amount, field of view, quality, focus, light, and gave an overall rating, and asked whether they could make an accurate diagnosis for both still images and recordings. RESULTS: More video otoscopy recordings were rated as 'good' or 'excellent' compared to still images across all domains. The mean difference between the two otoscopic procedures ratings was significant across almost all domains (p < 0.05), except 'cerumen amount'. The suitability to make a diagnosis significantly improved when using recordings (p<0.05). Younger participant age was found to have a significant, negative impact on the ratings across all domains (p < 0.03). The role of the tester conducting video otoscopy did not have a significant impact on the ratings. DISCUSSION: Video otoscopy recordings were found to provide clearer views of the tympanic membrane and increase the ability to make diagnoses, compared to still images, for both audiologists and ENT surgeons. Research assistants with limited practice were able to obtain video otoscopy images and recordings that were comparable to the ones obtained by clinicians.

Asynchronous interpretation of manual and automated audiometry: Agreement and reliability.

Introduction Remote interpretation of automated audiometry offers the potential to enable asynchronous tele-audiology assessment and diagnosis in areas where synchronous tele-audiometry may not be possible or practical. The aim of this study was to compare remote interpretation of manual and automated audiometry. Methods Five audiologists each interpreted manual and automated audiograms obtained from 42 patients. The main outcome variable was the audiologist's recommendation for patient management (which included treatment recommendations, referral or discharge) between the manual and automated audiometry test. Cohen's Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha were used to calculate and quantify the intra- and inter-observer agreement, respectively, and McNemar's test was used to assess the audiologist-rated accuracy of audiograms. Audiograms were randomised and audiologists were blinded as to whether they were interpreting a manual or automated audiogram. Results Intra-observer agreement was substantial for management outcomes when comparing interpretations for manual and automated audiograms. Inter-observer agreement was moderate between clinicians for determining management decisions when interpreting both manual and automated audiograms. Audiologists were 2.8 times more likely to question the accuracy of an automated audiogram compared to a manual audiogram. Discussion There is a lack of agreement between audiologists when interpreting audiograms, whether recorded with automated or manual audiometry. The main variability in remote audiogram interpretation is likely to be individual clinician variation, rather than automation.