Use of a Low-fidelity simulator to improve trans-nasal fibre-optic flexible laryngoscopy in the clinical setting: a randomized, single-blinded, prospective study

Article deposited according to agreement with BMC, December 2, 2010 and according to publisher policies: http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/copyright [June 10, 2013].YesFunding provided by the Open Access Authors Fund

Choosing Wisely Canada – pediatric otolaryngology recommendations

The Choosing Wisely Canada campaign raises awareness amongst physicians and patients regarding unnecessary or inappropriate tests and treatments. Using an online survey, members of the Pediatric Otolaryngology Subspecialty Group within the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery developed a list of nine evidence based recommendations to help physicians and patients make treatment decisions regarding common pediatric otolaryngology presentations: (1) Don’t routinely order a plain film x-ray in the evaluation of nasal fractures; (2) Don’t order imaging to distinguish acute bacterial sinusitis from an upper respiratory infection; (3) Don’t place tympanostomy tubes in most children for a single episode of otitis media with effusion of less than 3 months duration; (4) Don’t routinely prescribe intranasal/systemic steroids, antihistamines or decongestants for children with uncomplicated otitis media with effusion; (5) Don’t prescribe oral antibiotics for children with uncomplicated tympanostomy tube otorrhea or uncomplicated acute otitis externa; (6) Don’t prescribe codeine for post-tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy pain relief in children; (7) Don’t administer perioperative antibiotics for elective tonsillectomy in children; (8) Don’t perform tonsillectomy for children with uncomplicated recurrent throat infections if there have been fewer than 7 episodes in the past year, 5 episodes in each of the past 2 years, or 3 episodes in each of the last 3 years; and (9) Don’t perform endoscopic sinus surgery for uncomplicated pediatric chronic rhinosinusitis prior to failure of maximal medical therapy and adenoidectomy.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCSurgery, Department ofReviewedFacult

Proposed Quality Indicators for Aspects of Pediatric Acute Otitis Media Management

<jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p> The high incidence of pediatric acute otitis media (AOM) makes the implications of overdiagnosis and overtreatment far-reaching. Quality indicators (QIs) for AOM are limited, drawing from generalized upper respiratory infection QIs, or locally developed benchmarks. Recognizing this, we sought to develop pediatric AOM QIs to build a foundation for future quality improvement efforts. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p> Candidate indicators (CIs) were extracted from existing guidelines and position statements. The modified RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness methodology was used to select the final QIs by an 11-member expert panel consisting of otolaryngology—head and neck surgeons, a pediatrician and family physician. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p> Twenty-seven CIs were identified after literature review, with an additional CI developed by the expert panel. After the first round of evaluations, the panel agreed on 4 CIs as appropriate QIs. After an expert panel meeting and subsequent second round of evaluations, the panel agreed on 8 final QIs as appropriate measures of high-quality care. The 8 final QIs focus on topics of antimicrobial management, specialty referral, and tympanostomy tube counseling. </jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p> Evidence of variable and substandard care persists in the diagnosis and management of pediatric AOM despite the existence of high-quality guidelines. This study proposes 8 QIs which compliment guideline recommendations and are meant to facilitate future quality improvement initiatives that can improve patient outcomes. </jats:p></jats:sec&gt

A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program. METHODS: Twenty-four SRs were assessed using existing methods that incorporate limited literature searches, expert opinion, and quantitative methods for the presence of signals triggering the need for updating. The system was designed to begin surveillance six months after the release of the original review, and thenceforth every six months for any review not classified as being a high priority for updating. The outcome of each round of surveillance was a classification of the SR as being low, medium or high priority for updating. RESULTS: Twenty-four SRs underwent surveillance at least once, and ten underwent surveillance a second time during the 18 months of the program. Two SRs were classified as high, five as medium, and 17 as low priority for updating. The time lapse between the searches conducted for the original reports and the updated searches (search time lapse - STL) ranged from 11 months to 62 months: The STL for the high priority reports were 29 months and 54 months; those for medium priority reports ranged from 19 to 62 months; and those for low priority reports ranged from 11 to 33 months. Neither the STL nor the number of new relevant articles was perfectly associated with a signal for updating. Challenges of implementing the surveillance system included determining what constituted the actual conclusions of an SR that required assessing; and sometimes poor response rates of experts. CONCLUSION: In this system of regular surveillance of 24 systematic reviews on a variety of clinical interventions produced by a leading organization, about 70% of reviews were determined to have a low priority for updating. Evidence suggests that the time period for surveillance is yearly rather than the six months used in this project