Outcome of two-week head and neck cancer pathway for the otolaryngology department in a tertiary centre.

BACKGROUND: The two-week-wait head and neck cancer referral pathway was introduced by the Department of Health, and refined through National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines which were updated in 2015. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of two-week-wait referrals to out-patient ENT from January to June 2018. The analysis included demographics, referral symptoms according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2015 guidelines, cancer pick-up rates and positive predictive values. RESULTS: A total of 1107 patients were referred for suspected head and neck cancer over six months, with 6 per cent diagnosed with cancer. Neck lump, persistent hoarseness and throat pain were the most common presenting symptoms. Neck lump had the highest positive predictive value, followed by oral swelling. Oral bleeding and persistent unilateral sore throat showed significant positive predictive values. Investigation for metastatic head and neck cancer of an unknown primary or the involvement of other multidisciplinary teams could hinder the achievement of a 62-day treatment target. CONCLUSION: The cancer pick-up rate from two-week-wait referrals is only 1.5 times higher than routine referrals. The 'red flag' symptoms given in the 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence update would benefit from further review.

Analysis of the characteristics of outpatient and emergency diseases in the department of otolaryngology during the "COVID-19" pandemic.

The pandemic of "Corona Virus Disease 2019" (COVID-19) has changed the lives of people. There have been changes in common outpatient and emergency cases in otolaryngology, so an analysis of data pertaining to this was completed. This study is to evaluate the impact of viral infection disease in otolaryngological common disease. This study uses the data of common diseases in the outpatient and emergency department during the "COVID-19" pandemic (from February to April 2020) and the same period in the past 3 years from the Department of Otolaryngology. During the "COVID-19" period compared with the same period last year, the ranking of cases by diseases has changed. Diseases such as chronic pharyngitis, allergic rhinitis, sudden deafness, and tinnitus increased, meanwhile acute pharyngitis and acute laryngopharyngitis decreased (p < 0.05). The viral infection has impacted the mental behaviors of people, therefore mental-related disease cases of the department of Otolaryngology have increased indirectly. This study provides real data to illustrate mental-related diseases. It also provides experience and shows the importance of keeping and maintaining mental health.

Improving the management of suspected tonsillitis and peritonsillar abscess referred to ENT - a coronavirus disease 2019 service improvement.

BACKGROUND: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on healthcare has led to rapid changes in otolaryngology service provisions. As such, new standard operating procedures for the management of suspected tonsillitis or quinsy were implemented in our centre. METHODS: A retrospective audit was performed of acute referrals to ENT of patients with suspected tonsillitis, peritonsillar cellulitis or quinsy, during the 10 weeks before (group 1) and 10 weeks after (group 2) implementation of the new standard operating procedures. RESULTS: Group 2 received fewer referrals. Fewer nasendoscopies were performed and corticosteroid use was reduced. The frequency of quinsy drainage performed under local anaesthetic increased, although the difference was not statistically significant. Hospital admission rates decreased from 56.1 to 20.4 per cent, and mean length of stay increased from 1.13 to 1.5 days. Face-to-face follow up decreased from 15.0 to 8.2 per cent, whilst virtual follow up increased from 4.7 to 16.3 per cent. There were no significant differences in re-presentation or re-admission rates. CONCLUSION: Management of suspected tonsillitis or quinsy using the new standard operating procedures appears to be safe and effective. This management should now be applied to an out-patient setting in otherwise systemically well patients.

Publicly Reported Patient Satisfaction Scores in Academic Otolaryngology Departments.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Despite controversy regarding their impact and validity, there is a rising national focus on patient satisfaction scores (PSS). We describe the landscape of online PSS as posted by academic otolaryngology practices. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Websites of academic otolaryngology programs were reviewed for PSS scores, provider type, and geographic location. Gender was determined by picture or profile pronouns. Years of experience were determined by year of initial American Board of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery certification. We defined PSS derived from Press-Ganey or Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys as "standardized PSS". We determined potential associations between provider characteristics and standardized PSS. RESULTS: Out of 115 Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery academic programs, 40 (35%) posted a total of 64,638 online PSS surveys (nonstandardized plus standardized) of 507 unique otolaryngology care providers. Standardized PSS were posted for 473 providers (370 [78%] male; 446 physicians; 27 advanced practice providers). Median overall standardized PSS was 4.8 (interquartile range 4.7-4.9; range 3.8-5.0). PSS were similar between gender, provider type, and years of experience. Male providers had more surveys than female providers (149 vs. 93; P < .01). There was a linear relationship between number of surveys and years of experience (P < .01), but no relationship between number of surveys and overall standardized PSS. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction with otolaryngology providers at academic institutions is consistently high, as demonstrated by high online PSS with little variability. The limited variation in PSS may limit their usefulness in differentiating providers and quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 131:2204-2210, 2021.

Online Reputations: Comparing Hospital- and Patient-Generated Ratings in Academic Otolaryngology.

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.

[Patient in the otolaryngology office in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic in the light of current recommendations, legal regulations and authors' own experience]. / Pacjent w gabinecie otolaryngologicznym w dobie pandemii COVID-19 w swietle aktualnych wytycznych, przepisów prawnych i wlasnych doswiadczen.

Generally, COVID-19 is an acute contagious disease caused by the SARS­CoV-2 virus. The main route of human-to-human transmission is through contact with infectious secretions from the respiratory tract. Clinical manifestations vary from mild non-specific symptoms to life-threatening conditions. Since WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020, it has affected many medical, legal, social and economic aspects of everyday life in countries around the world. In this article, the authors present a summary of recommendations for taking care of otorhinolaryngology patients in outpatient settings and the legal basis referring to a risk of infection in doctor's office. In the selection of articles, the authors used English- and Polish-language online medical databases, typing the following keywords: SARS­CoV-2, COVID-19, otolaryngology, endoscopy, personal protective equipment, and legal responsibility of the physician. The mucosa of the upper respiratory tract is a potential site of virus replication. The specificity of an ear, nose and throat (ENT) examination and a direct patient-doctor contact favor the transmission of the infection. The authors discussed the elements of self-protection of medical personnel and the legal aspects a risk of the patient contracting the infection in the otolaryngology office. In the case of a direct contact with the patient, the following medical personal protective equipment is required: a cap, a mask with an FFP-2 filter, goggles, an apron and gloves. If, during the visit, exposure to secretions or aerosol from the respiratory tract is expected, the personnel should additionally wear a visor and a waterproof apron. The patient's visit in the clinic should be preceded by telemedicine consultation. Patients should be screened prior to having a direct contact with a physician, using a short patient questionnaire. The questionnaire may consist of simple questions about the characteristic symptoms of the SARS­CoV-2 infection and exposure to a sick person in the past 14 days. The question of staying in the areas of a high infection risk appears of little importance in view of the whole of Poland being perceived as constituting such an area. Due to the spread of the SARS­CoV-2 virus, new procedures for providing medical services have been introduced. In the case of claims on the part of the patient, the only protection the medical personnel or facility can provide is confirmation of scrupulous compliance with medical procedures . Med Pr. 2021;72(3):327-34.

The Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) Is a Poor Diagnostic Tool for Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: The SNOT-22 is a validated and widely used outcomes tool in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). We hypothesized that SNOT-22 scores and response patterns could be used as a diagnostic tool to differentiate between patients with CRS and those who present with CRS-like symptoms but prove not to have CRS. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL: SNOT-22 measurements were collected from 311 patients who presented with a chief complaint of sinusitis to a tertiary rhinology practice. Following a full diagnostic evaluation, patients were diagnosed with CRS or determined to have non-CRS diagnoses. A response pattern "heatmap" of the SNOT-22 scores for each group was compared. An optimal cutoff point for total SNOT-22 score in predicting CRS was sought using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were diagnosed with CRS and 202 patients were assigned to non-CRS. The non-CRS SNOT-22 total score histogram had lower overall scores compared to the CRS group, although there was substantial overlap. The CRS SNOT-22 heatmaps had a distinctive pattern compared to the non-CRS group. As individual measures, 3 of the 4 cardinal symptoms of CRS (nasal congestion, loss of smell, and rhinorrhea) were found to be significantly different between the 2 groups (P < .002). However, the ROC analysis showed the total SNOT-22 score to be a poor instrument to differentiate CRS from non-CRS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results cause us to reject our hypothesis and conclude that, while an effective outcomes tool, the SNOT-22 (using total score and response pattern) is a poor differentiator between CRS and non-CRS patients.

Aerosol and Droplet Risk of Common Otolaryngology Clinic Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Define aerosol and droplet risks associated with routine otolaryngology clinic procedures during the COVID-19 era. METHODS: Clinical procedures were simulated in cadaveric heads whose oral and nasal cavities were coated with fluorescent tracer (vitamin B2) and breathing was manually simulated through retrograde intubation. A cascade impactor placed adjacent to the nares collected generated particles with aerodynamic diameters ≤14.1 µm. The 3D printed models and syringes were used to simulate middle and external ear suctioning as well as open suctioning, respectively. Provider's personal protective equipment (PPE) and procedural field contamination were also recorded for all trials using vitamin B2 fluorescent tracer. RESULTS: The positive controls of nebulized vitamin B2 produced aerosol particles ≤3.30 µm and endonasal drilling of a 3D model generated particles ≤14.1 µm. As compared with positive controls, aerosols and small droplets with aerodynamic diameter ≤14.1 µm were not detected during rigid nasal endoscopy, flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy, and rigid nasal suction of cadavers with simulated breathing. There was minimal to no field contamination in all 3 scenarios. Middle and external ear suctioning and open container suctioning did not result in any detectable droplet contamination. The clinic suction unit contained all fluorescent material without surrounding environmental contamination. CONCLUSION: While patients' coughing and sneezing may create a baseline risk for providers, this study demonstrates that nasal endoscopy, flexible laryngoscopy, and suctioning inherently do not pose an additional risk in terms of aerosol and small droplet generation. An overarching generalization cannot be made about endoscopy or suctioning being an aerosol generating procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Clinical Excellence in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: Examples from the Published Literature.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To apply the domains of clinical excellence, as published by the Miller-Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence, to the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) as a framework for evaluating and improving clinical excellence. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) databases was performed and 229 publications were reviewed. RESULTS: Case reports and other articles were selected that exemplify each of the distinct domains of clinical excellence within our specialty. CONCLUSIONS: The Miller-Coulson Academy's domains of clinical excellence are relevant to OHNS and can provide a framework for fostering clinical excellence in otolaryngologists. The many examples of excellent care by otolaryngologists found in the published literature can inspire otolaryngologists to provide outstanding care to all patients consistently and to advance our specialty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 131:E2153-E2158, 2021.

Quality Improvement in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: Age-Related Hearing Loss Measures.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE: There is a high and growing prevalence of age-related hearing loss (ARHL), defined as presbycusis or bilateral, symmetric sensorineural hearing loss in older adults. Due to the increasing prevalence of ARHL, the potential delays in its diagnosis and treatment, and the significant disability associated with ARHL, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) convened a Measures Development Group (MDG) to develop quality measures (QMs) of clinical practice that could be incorporated into the AAO-HNSF's data registry Reg-ent. Although the AAO-HNSF has been engaged in robust clinical practice guideline development since 2006, the development of quality and performance measures is more recent. METHODS: We report the process, experience, and outcomes in developing a de novo QM set for ARHL in the absence of a preexisting clinical practice guideline on this topic. Steps include the MDG review of evidentiary literature on ARHL, followed by stakeholder discussions to develop measure specifications. Key considerations included discussion on the relative importance, usability, and feasibility of each measure within the Reg-ent or similar databases. RESULTS: The MDG created 4 QMs for the diagnosis and treatment of AHRL. These measures represent the AAO-HNSF's quality initiatives to develop evidence-based QMs and improve patient care and outcomes, and they are intended to assist providers in enhancing quality of care. CONCLUSION: Development of the ARHL measures is intended for clinicians to evaluate the patient perception, structure, process, and outcomes of care. This process represents a new stage in the AAO-HNSF's measure development efforts to facilitate future efforts in evidence-based QM.

Advanced Practice Provider Clinics: Expediting Care For Children Undergoing Tympanostomy Tube Placement.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Advanced practice provider (APP) employment is becoming common in pediatric otolaryngology practices, though few studies have evaluated the consequences that APP-led clinics have on access to care. The objectives of this study were: 1) to investigate whether access to bilateral myringotomy with tympanostomy tube placement (BMT) for recurrent acute otitis media (RAOM) differed between patients seen in otolaryngologist and APP-led clinics 2) to compare clinical characteristics of patients seen by provider type. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study at an academic, tertiary care pediatric otolaryngology practice. All children were <18 years old and underwent evaluation for RAOM followed by BMT. We compared time in days from scheduling pre-operative appointment to appointment date and time from appointment to BMT between patients seen by APPs and otolaryngologists using Mann-Whitney U tests and multivariate linear regression models. We compared clinical characteristics by provider type using Mann-Whitney U tests and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 957 children were included. Children seen by APPs had significantly shorter wait times for appointments (median 19 vs. 39 days, P < .001) and shorter times from preoperative appointment to BMT (median 25 vs. 37 days, P < .001). Patients seen by otolaryngologists had increased prevalence of craniofacial abnormalities, Down Syndrome, hearing loss, history of otologic surgery, and higher ASA physical status classification. CONCLUSIONS: Children seen by APPs received care more quickly than those seen by otolaryngologists. Patients seen by otolaryngologists tended to be more medically complex. Implementation of independent APP clinics may expedite and improve access to BMT for children with RAOM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:2133-2140, 2021.

Endoscopic laryngeal findings in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to report the pre- and post-operative laryngeal endoscopic findings in patients referred by non-otolaryngologists who are undergoing thyroid and/or parathyroid surgery, and to determine the number and nature of referrals before and after the release of the clinical practice guideline for improving voice outcomes after thyroid surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, conducted at a tertiary care academic hospital, comprised adult patients referred by the endocrine surgery service for laryngoscopy from 2007 to 2018 (n = 166). Data regarding patient demographics, reason for referral and endoscopic findings were recorded. RESULTS: The number of referrals increased significantly after the release of the practice guideline. The most common indication for referral pre- and post-operatively was voice change. The most common finding during laryngoscopy was normal examination findings (pre-operatively) and unilateral vocal fold immobility (post-operatively). CONCLUSION: Peri-operative thyroid and/or parathyroid patients have laryngoscopic findings other than vocal fold immobility. Laryngoscopy to detect structural and functional pathology is warranted.

Improving Mortality Attribution in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Mortality attribution can have significant implications for reimbursement, hospital/department rankings, and perceptions of safety. This work seeks to compare the accuracy of externally assigned diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based service line mortality attribution in otolaryngology to an internal review process that assigns mortality to the teams that cared for a patient during hospitalization. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Mortality events at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) from 2012 to 2018 were compared. Included events were assigned to the otolaryngology service line (OSL) via the following methods: an external agency (Vizient) using DRG, utilization management assignment based on the service that provided care at admission (admission service), discharge (discharge service), or throughout hospitalization (major service line), or through the internal VUMC mortality review committee. Internal review was considered the standard for comparison. RESULTS: Of the 28 mortality events assigned to OSL by the DRG-based external method, nine (32%) were actually attributable to OSL. Of the 23 total mortality events attributable to OSL at our institution, external DRG-based review captured nine (39%). The designation of major service during hospitalization was correct 95% of the time and captured 87% of mortality events. Differences between external and internal attribution methods were statistically significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: DRG-based models are frequently utilized but can be inaccurate when attributing mortality for an individual otolaryngology department. Otolaryngology mortalities appear to be captured and assigned more accurately by assigning deaths to the service that renders the majority of care during hospitalization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E1805-E1810, 2021.

Citation bias in otolaryngology systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Reproducibility of systemic reviews (SRs) can be hindered by the presence of citation bias. Citation bias may occur when authors of SRs conduct hand-searches of included study reference lists to identify additional studies. Such a practice may lead to exaggerated SR summary effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the prevalence of hand-searching reference lists in otolaryngology SRs. METHODS: The authors searched for systematic reviews published in eight clinical otolaryngology journals using the Cochrane Library and PubMed, with the date parameter of January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Two independent authors worked separately to extract data from each SR for the following elements: whether reference lists were hand-searched, other kinds of supplemental searching, PRISMA adherence, and funding source. Following extraction, the investigators met to review discrepancies and achieve consensus. RESULTS: A total of 539 systemic reviews, 502 from clinical journals and 37 from the Cochrane library, were identified. Of those SRs, 72.4% (390/539) hand-searched reference lists, including 97.3% (36/37) of Cochrane reviews. For 228 (58.5%) of the SRs that hand-searched reference lists, no other supplemental search (e.g., search of trial registries) was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that hand-searching reference lists is a common practice in otolaryngology SRs. Moreover, a majority of studies at risk of citation bias did not attempt to mitigate the bias by conducting additional supplemental searches. The implication is that summary effects in otolaryngology systematic reviews may be biased toward statistically significant findings.

Improving clinical practice in ENT: Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ENT community has demonstrated strong clinical leadership, adaptability to rapid change, enhanced clinical pathways and local networks, widespread use of digital technology for consultation and teaching and redirection of research programmes. These have permanently changed the way we work and, when the current global pandemic improves as COVID-19 infections drop and vaccination programmes are rolled out, we should ensure that the positive changes that have been made are embedded in clinical practice to improve patient care.

Patient Safety and Quality Improvement in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The current landscape of patient safety/quality improvement (PS/QI) research dedicated to Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) has not been established. This systematic review aims to define the breadth and depth of PS/QI research dedicated to OHNS and to identify knowledge gaps as well as potential areas of future study. METHODS: The study protocol was developed a priori using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) process. A computerized Ovid/Medline database search was conducted (January 1, 1965-September 30, 2019). Similar computerized searches were conducted using Cochrane Database, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Articles were classified by year, subspecialty, PS/QI category, Institute of Medicine (IOM) Crossing the Chasm categories, and World Health Organization (WHO) subclass. RESULTS: Computerized searches yielded 11,570 eligible articles, 738 (6.4%) of which met otolaryngology PS/QI inclusion criteria; 178 (24.1%) were not specific to any one subspecialty. The most prevalent subspecialty foci were head and neck (29.9%), pediatric otolaryngology (16.9%), and otology/neurotology (11.0%). Studies examining complications or risk factors (32.0%) and outcomes/quality measures (16.3%) were the most common foci. Classification by the IOM included effective care (31.4%), safety (29.9%), and safety/effective care (25.3%). Most research fell into the WHO categories of understanding causes (28.5%) or measuring harm (28.3%). CONCLUSION: Most OHNS PS/QI projects (32.0%) focus on reporting complications or risk factors, followed by outcomes/quality measures (16.3%). Knowledges gaps for future research include healthcare disparities, multidisciplinary care, and the WHO category of studies translating evidence into safer care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 131:33-40, 2021.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology, Part XI: Modeling and Analysis to Support Decisions.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a resource to educate clinical decision makers about the analyses and models that can be employed to support data-driven choices. DATA SOURCES: Published studies and literature regarding decision analysis, decision trees, and models used to support clinical decisions. REVIEW METHODS: Decision models provide insights into the evidence and its implications for those who make choices about clinical care and resource allocation. Decision models are designed to further our understanding and allow exploration of the common problems that we face, with parameters derived from the best available evidence. Analysis of these models demonstrates critical insights and uncertainties surrounding key problems via a readily interpretable yet quantitative format. This 11th installment of the Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology series thus provides a step-by-step introduction to decision models, their typical framework, and favored approaches to inform data-driven practice for patient-level decisions, as well as comparative assessments of proposed health interventions for larger populations. CONCLUSIONS: Information to support decisions may arise from tools such as decision trees, Markov models, microsimulation models, and dynamic transmission models. These data can help guide choices about competing or alternative approaches to health care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Methods have been developed to support decisions based on data. Understanding the related techniques may help promote an evidence-based approach to clinical management and policy.

An Analysis of the US News & World Report Methodology for Attribution of Specialty Care in Otolaryngology and Urology.

US News & World Report (USNWR) rankings can assist patients with choosing where to receive their specialty care. USNWR methodology assumes that the specialty caring for hospitalized patients is equivalent to the specialty assigned by administrative coding. We examined the frequency of discordance between USNWR methodology-assigned specialty and the actual specialty care received for 2 surgical specialties, otolaryngology (ENT) and urology (GU). Our analysis included inpatient deaths identified by USNWR coding for these specialties from 2013 to 2017 at a single academic tertiary care center. We found that a minority of patients with deaths attributed by USNWR to these 2 specialties were actually cared for by ENT (6/14; 43%) or GU (3/19; 16%). Only 5 of 14 (36%) and 2 of 19 (11%) deaths were potentially associated with ENT and GU care, respectively. We identified a significant discordance between USNWR-assigned specialty and the actual specialty care received.