ABSTRACT
Objective: Identify baseline epistaxis rates and epistaxis-related health care utilization trends in the ventricular assist device (VAD) population. Methods: Single center, retrospective cohort study consisting of chart review of adult VAD patients. Analysis of descriptive statistics was assessed using χ 2 tests, independent sample t tests, or Fisher's exact when expected counts were low. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between epistaxis and variables of interest. Results: Two hundred ninety patients were included in the analysis. Ninety-eight (33.8%) patients developed epistaxis and 84 (29.0%) received medical attention. Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding had increased rates of epistaxis (42.4% vs 29.0%). Logistic regression analysis found GI bleeding to have an adjusted odds of developing epistaxis of 1.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-3.37) and kidney disease to have an adjusted odds of 1.83 (95% CI: 1.06, 3.13). Discussion: VAD implantation improves survival and quality of life but also carries significant bleeding risks. At our institution, 29% of VAD patients received medical attention for epistaxis. GI bleeding and kidney disease were found to have increased adjusted odds of developing epistaxis. Fifty-nine percent of epistaxis events occurred while inpatient and 32.8% of events were seen in the emergency department. Implications for Practice: VAD patients are an at-risk group that could potentially benefit from preventative nasal hydration regimen.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study compares hospital-generated online ratings to patient-generated online ratings in academic otolaryngology and evaluates physician factors influencing these results. METHODS: Websites of academic otolaryngologists were assessed for inclusion of hospital-generated Press Ganey surveys. Corresponding scores on Healthgrades and Vitals.com were identified via internet search. Hospital ratings were compared with patient-generated ratings, including score, demographics, and number of ratings. All data was collected between July 15th 2019 and August 22nd 2019. RESULTS: 742 academic otolaryngologists with hospital-generated ratings were identified. Mean hospital-generated rating was significantly higher ((4.70, 95% CI 4.69-4.72) than patient-generated rating (Vitals:4.26, 95% CI 4.18-4.34, and Healthgrades:4.02, 95% CI 3.87-4.18; P < .001). In patient-generated rating, an increased number of rating scores (>20) was associated with male gender, professor ranking, and >30 years in practice (P < .005). Physician demographics did not impact number of ratings in hospital-generated setting. With patient-generated, lower aggregate score was associated with professor ranking (P = .001). In hospital-generated, lower score was associated with >30+ years in practice (P = .023). Across all platforms, comprehensive otolaryngologists and neurotologists/otologists were rated lower in comparison to other specialties (PGS:P < .001,Vitals:P = .027,Healthgrades:P = .016). CONCLUSION: Hospital-generated ratings yield higher mean scores than patient-generated platforms. Between sources, Healthgrades.com scores were lower than those of Vitals.com. Professors with >30 years of practice generated more reviews in patient-generated ratings, and these physicians were generally rated lower. Access to patient-generated ratings is universal and physicians should be aware of variability between online rating platforms as scores may affect referrals and practice patterns.