Evaluating diagnostic and management agreement between physiotherapists and ear, nose and throat specialist in a primary contact physiotherapy-led vestibular clinic: A prospective blinded inter-rater agreement pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Dizziness and vertigo are common referrals to Ear Nose Throat (ENT) outpatient services however these services have long waitlists for assessment. Primary contact physiotherapy-led vestibular clinics are recognized as improving access to care. This pilot study investigated agreement between physiotherapists and an ENT medical practitioner for diagnostic and management decisions in patients attending a primary contact physiotherapy-led vestibular clinic. METHODS: Prospective blinded inter-rater agreement study undertaken in an ENT primary contact physiotherapy-led vestibular clinic. Participants were adults referred to ENT from general practitioners, triaged (Category 2 or 3) to the primary contact physiotherapy-led vestibular clinic with clinical symptoms consistent with vestibular disorder. Primary outcome measures included agreement of diagnoses and management decisions made by an ENT medical practitioner and Physiotherapist based on a vestibular physiotherapy assessment. Adverse events were reviewed 11 months post data collection. Gwet's first order agreement co-efficient (AC1) calculated inter-rater reliability between physiotherapy and ENT. RESULTS: Fifty-one participants were recruited consecutively from the primary contact physiotherapy-led vestibular clinic. Physiotherapy and ENT had a substantial agreement (AC1 0.613) on diagnosis. AC1 between physiotherapy and ENT for recommending Magnetic resonance imaging (0.810) and computerized tomography (0.935) both indicated near perfect agreement. There was moderate to near-perfect agreement regarding management recommendations between physiotherapy and ENT. Substantial agreement (AC1 0.720) was found for recommendations for ENT input, near perfect agreement (AC1 0.933) for neurology input and moderate agreement (AC1 0.574) for physiotherapy input. There were no adverse events from physiotherapist's management decision, based on final recommendations undertaken 11-months post data collection. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapists and ENT medical practitioner made comparable diagnostic and management decisions, based on physiotherapy and audiology hearing assessment, for adults with signs of vestibular dysfunction, within an ENT primary contact physiotherapy-led vestibular clinic. This study provides support for this type of Physiotherapy-led service in managing patients referred to an ENT service with vestibular dysfunction.

Evaluating diagnostic and management agreement between audiology and ENT: a prospective inter-rater agreement study in a paediatric primary contact clinic.

BACKGROUND: Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) primary contact models of care use audiologists as the first triage point for children referred to ENT for middle ear and hearing concerns; and have shown reduced waiting time, improved ENT surgical conversion rates and increased service capacity. This study aimed to investigate 'safety and quality' of the model by looking at agreement between audiologists' and an ENT's clinical decisions.  METHODS: We performed an inter-rater agreement study on diagnosis and management decisions made by audiologists and an ENT for 50 children seen in an Australian hospital's ENT primary contact service, and examined the nature and patterns of disagreements. RESULTS: Professionals agreed on at least one site-of-lesion diagnosis for all children (100%) and on the primary management for 74% (Gwet's AC1 = 0.67). Management disagreements clustered around i) providing 'watchful waiting' versus sooner medical opinion (18%), and ii) providing monitoring versus discharge for children with no current symptoms (8%). There were no cases where the audiologist recommended discharge when the ENT recommended further medical opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel research provides further evidence that Audiologist-led primary contact models for children with middle ear and hearing concerns are safe as well as efficient.

Outcomes of a multidisciplinary Ear, Nose and Throat Allied Health Primary Contact outpatient assessment service.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, patients are seen by an ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgeon prior to allied health referral for treatment of swallowing, voice, hearing and dizziness. Wait-times for ENT consultations often exceed those clinically recommended. We evaluated the service impact of five allied health primary contact clinics (AHPC-ENT) on wait-times and access to treatment. SETTING: A metropolitan Australian University Hospital Outpatient ENT Department. PARTICIPANTS: We created five AHPC-ENT pathways (dysphonia, dysphagia, vestibular, adult and paediatric audiology) for low-acuity patients referred to ENT with symptoms of dysphonia, dysphagia, dizziness and hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Using multiple regression analysis, we compared waiting times in the 24-month pre- and 12-month post-implementation of the AHPC-ENT service. In addition, we measured the number of patients requiring specialist ENT intervention after assessment in the AHPC-ENT, adverse events and evaluation of service delivery costs. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty-eight patients were seen in the AHPC-ENT over the first 12 months of implementation (dysphagia, 66; dysphonia, 153; vestibular, 151; retro-cochlear, 60; and paediatric glue ear, 308). All pathways significantly reduced the waiting times for patients by an average of 277 days, compared with usual care. The majority of patients were able to be discharged without ongoing ENT intervention (72% dysphagia; 81% dysphonia; 74% vestibular; 53% retro-cochlear; and 32% paediatric glue ear). No adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The AHPC-ENT improved waiting times for assessment and access to treatment. Future research on cost-effectiveness and diagnostic agreement between AHPs and ENT clinicians would provide further confidence in the model.

Construction and Validation of the Vestibular Screening Tool for Use in the Emergency Department and Acute Hospital Setting.

OBJECTIVES: To construct a new vestibular screening tool to identify likely vestibular disorders and guide referral of dizzy patients presenting to hospital and to test the vestibular screening tool for construct and discriminative validity and reliability of physiotherapy assessors. DESIGN: Methodologic study. SETTING: Emergency and acute hospital wards of a metropolitan hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N=114) presenting to hospital with dizziness (mean age, 67.36±14.88y; 57% women). INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three vestibular screening tools (3, 4, and 5 items) were investigated. Physiotherapy vestibular diagnostic tests categorized patients as vestibular or nonvestibular patients. Subsets of patients were assessed twice by 2 physiotherapists (n=20) and twice by the same physiotherapist (n=30). RESULTS: Each of the vestibular screening tools had a good fit to the Rasch measurement model. Factor analysis demonstrated individual items loaded across 1 factor, confirming unidimensionality of the 3 vestibular screening tools, and Cronbach α determined internal consistency. The 4-item vestibular screening tool had the greatest area under the curve using receiver operator curve analysis (.894), with highest sensitivity (83%) and specificity (84%) for identifying vestibular disorders (cutoff value ≥4/8). Sensitivity of the 3- and 5-item versions was lower than the 4-item vestibular screening tool (80%). The 4-item vestibular screening tool scores showed high intrarater (κ item scores, .831-1; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] total, .988) and interrater (κ item scores, .578-.921; ICC total, .878) reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-item vestibular screening tool is a reliable, valid tool for screening dizzy patients presenting to hospital, with unidimensional construct validity, high sensitivity, and specificity for identifying likely vestibular disorders. The vestibular screening tool could be used clinically to streamline referrals of dizzy patients to vestibular clinics.

Do Vestibular Physiotherapy and a Clinical Pathway in the Emergency Department Improve Management of Vertigo?

Objective: Determine the effects of a vertigo/dizziness emergency department (ED) clinical pathway incorporating vestibular physiotherapy on quality and efficiency of care. Study Design: A multisite retrospective study investigated differences between cohorts before and after a vertigo clinical pathway and cohorts who did and did not receive vestibular physiotherapy assessment. Setting: Adults presenting to 2 Australian EDs with symptoms clinically consistent with vestibular disorder were captured via ED diagnostic code screening and subsequent medical record review. Methods: Medical record audits obtained quality of care indicators: diagnosis, HINTS (head impulse-nystagmus-test of skew), and vestibular physiotherapy management. Linked hospital administrative data sets provided efficiency measures: time from ED presentation to assessments, hospital admission rates, and ED and total hospital length of stay. Results: Postpathway cohorts (n = 329) showed greater use of HINTS (by 27%; 95% CI, 21%-33%), more frequent vestibular physiotherapy assessment (by 27%; 95% CI, 20%-33%), reduced wait time to assessment (25.0 to 4.6 hours; 95% CI, -27.1 to -14.1), and reduced ED length of stay (3.9 to 3.2 hours; 95% CI, -0.3 to -1.0) as compared with prepathway cohorts (n = 214). When compared with those not receiving vestibular physiotherapy assessment, patients assessed by a vestibular physiotherapist (n = 150) received a specific diagnosis more frequently (65% vs 34%; 95% CI, 22%-40%) but were admitted more often (79% vs 49%; 95% CI, 22%-38%) with longer total hospital length of stay (13.0 vs 5.0 hours; 95% CI, 6.1-10.6). Conclusion: An ED vertigo clinical pathway was associated with improved quality and efficiency of care, including reduced ED time. Vestibular physiotherapist assessment was associated with greater diagnostic specificity but higher hospital admissions.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Effectiveness of Corticosteroids in Treating Adults With Acute Vestibular Neuritis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether steroids are effective in treating adults with acute vestibular neuritis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, CAB Abstract, ICTRP, LILACS, PEDRO, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Google Scholar, NARIC, and OT Seeker. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken for articles reporting subjective and/or objective outcomes of corticosteroids in adults with acute vestibular neuritis between December 2010 and October 2019. Reports of patient recovery from clinical vestibular outcomes at various time points and adverse effects from corticosteroids were of interest. Statistical analysis included qualitative and quantitative assessments. A limited meta-analysis of the data was performed through a random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies met the criteria, and 6 were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences between the groups (corticosteroid vs placebo, corticosteroid vs vestibular exercise, or corticosteroid vs combination of vestibular exercise and corticosteroid) were reported in the proportion of patients with complete recovery at 1, 6, and 12 months. The corticosteroid group had significantly better caloric recover at 1 month (95% CI, -16.33 to -0.32); however, there was no significant difference to the overall effect between the groups across 12 months. Subjective recovery did not differ between the groups. Five of the 8 studies reported on adverse effects from corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of corticosteroids in managing acute vestibular neuritis in adults. At present, corticosteroids appear to have short-term benefits in canal paresis but no long-term benefits in canal paresis and symptomatic recovery. Future studies should consider including a wider variety of clinical vestibular tests and frequent acute follow-ups to monitor the effects of corticosteroids.

A systematic review of patient-reported measures associated with vestibular dysfunction.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Use of clinical questionnaires to assist in the screening of vestibular disorders in the acute hospital setting is needed. The objective is to detail the clinimetric properties and clinical utility of patient-reported questionnaires for quantifying dizziness/vertigo symptoms associated with vestibular dysfunction, and to determine validity and utility for screening dizziness/vertigo in the emergency department. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science in May 2015. METHODS: Two independent reviewers selected studies reporting clinimetric properties of patient-reported questionnaires that aim to evaluate symptomology of dizziness/vertigo associated with vestibular dysfunction. A third reviewer resolved disparities. Of 1,901 articles initially found in the database search, 58 articles and 9 patient-reported questionnaires were included. RESULTS: Clinimetric properties of content validity, criterion validity, internal consistency, inter-/intrarater reliability, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to vestibular rehabilitation are reported, and methodological quality is rated using the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist. Clinical utility is described in terms of target population, purpose, number of items, and whether the questionnaire was validated in the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: The Vestibular Rehabilitation Benefit Questionnaire, a relatively new tool, scored an "excellent" rating on three COSMIN criteria, and may be the best measure to address treatment outcomes. Questions on respective tools ranged from nine to 36, and no questionnaire was validated in the emergency department. Due to the number of questions and lack of validity, none of the questionnaires was deemed appropriate as a screening tool for dizziness/vertigo in the emergency department. Laryngoscope, 128:971-981, 2018.