Dataset Information

In-office laryngeal procedures (IOLP) in Canada: current safety practices and procedural care.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The advent of chip tip technology combined with advanced endoscopy has revolutionized the field of laryngology in the past decade. Procedures such as transnasal esophagoscopy, site-specific steroid injections, injection laryngoplasty and laryngeal laser treatment can now be performed in the office setting under local anaesthesia. Although In-Office Laryngeal Procedures (IOLPs) have become standard-of-care in many American and several Canadian centers, there are no guidelines regulating the practice of these procedures. The goal of this report was to evaluate the current method of IOLP delivery in Canada. METHODS:An electronic survey was dispersed to 22 practicing Canadian laryngologists to assess safety and procedural care measures undertaken when performing IOLP. The survey consisted of 37 questions divided into 6 categories; 1) Demographic data 2) Facilities 3) Staff/personnel 4) Patient screening/monitoring 5) Procedure and emergency equipment 6) Reporting of adverse events. RESULTS:Data was collected for 16/22 laryngologists (72.7% response rate). Only 1 respondent did not perform IOLP. All performed injection augmentation laryngoplasty. Most performed laryngeal biopsies, intramuscular injection and/or electromyography guided injection for the treatment of spasmodic dysphonia and glottic/subglottic steroid injections. Only 4 respondents performed in-office KTP laser. Significant variation was found in procedural processes including intra procedural monitoring, anticoagulation screening, access to emergency equipment and documentation. CONCLUSION:Our survey demonstrates that the delivery of IOLP in Canada varies considerably. The construct of IOLP practice guidelines based on the evidence with consistent documentation would promote safe, efficient and quality care for patient with voice disorders.

SUBMITTER: Bensoussan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5883580 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In-office laryngeal procedures (IOLP) in Canada: current safety practices and procedural care.

Bensoussan Yael Y Anderson Jennifer J

Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale 20180403 1

<h4>Background</h4>The advent of chip tip technology combined with advanced endoscopy has revolutionized the field of laryngology in the past decade. Procedures such as transnasal esophagoscopy, site-specific steroid injections, injection laryngoplasty and laryngeal laser treatment can now be performed in the office setting under local anaesthesia. Although In-Office Laryngeal Procedures (IOLPs) have become standard-of-care in many American and several Canadian centers, there are no guidelines r ...[more]

PMID: 29615125

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveDescribe safety practices for performing in-office laryngology procedures during clinical re-introduction amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsAn anonymous survey in Qualtrics was created to evaluate demographics, preprocedure testing, practice settings, anesthesia, and personal protective equipment (PPE) use for five procedure categories (non-mucosal-traversing injections, mucosal-traversing injections, endoscopy without suction, endoscopy with suction/mucosal intervention via working channel, and laser via working channel). The survey was emailed to the Fall Voice Community on Doc Matter and to members of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association (ABEA) from May to June 2020.ResultsEighty-two respondents were analyzed (response rate: 10%). Respondents represented diverse locations, including international. Most reported academic (71%) or private practices (16%), laryngology fellowship training (76%), and a significant practice devotion to laryngology and broncho-esophagology. During the early re-introduction, most continued to perform all procedure categories. The office was preferred to the OR setting for most, though 36% preferred the OR for laser procedures. There was a preference for preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing for procedures involving a working channel (>67%), and these procedures had the highest proportion of respondents discontinuing the procedure due to COVID-19. Various types of topical anesthesia were reported, including nebulizer treatments. The most common forms of personal protective equipment utilized were gloves (>95%) and N95 masks (>67%). Powered-air purifying respirators and general surgical masks were used infrequently.ConclusionsDuring the early re-introduction, respondents reported generally continuing to perform office laryngology procedures, while greater mucosal manipulation affected decisions to stop procedures due to COVID-19, perform preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing, and alter topical anesthesia. Gloves and N95 masks were the predominate PPE.Level of evidenceN/A.

Project description:Although electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) holds promise for preventing prescription errors in the ambulatory setting, research on its effectiveness is inconclusive.To assess the impact of a stand-alone e-prescribing system on the rates and types of ambulatory prescribing errors.Prospective, non-randomized study using pre-post design of 15 providers who adopted e-prescribing with concurrent controls of 15 paper-based providers from September 2005 through June 2007.Use of a commercial, stand-alone e-prescribing system with clinical decision support including dosing recommendations and checks for drug-allergy interactions, drug-drug interactions, and duplicate therapies.Prescribing errors were identified by a standardized prescription and chart review.We analyzed 3684 paper-based prescriptions at baseline and 3848 paper-based and electronic prescriptions at one year of follow-up. For e-prescribing adopters, error rates decreased nearly sevenfold, from 42.5 per 100 prescriptions (95% confidence interval (CI), 36.7-49.3) at baseline to 6.6 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 5.1-8.3) one year after adoption (p < 0.001). For non-adopters, error rates remained high at 37.3 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.6-50.2) at baseline and 38.4 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.4-53.9) at one year (p = 0.54). At one year, the error rate for e-prescribing adopters was significantly lower than for non-adopters (p < 0.001). Illegibility errors were very high at baseline and were completely eliminated by e-prescribing (87.6 per 100 prescriptions at baseline for e-prescribing adopters, 0 at one year).Prescribing errors may occur much more frequently in community-based practices than previously reported. Our preliminary findings suggest that stand-alone e-prescribing with clinical decision support may significantly improve ambulatory medication safety.ClinicalTrials.gov, Taconic Health Information Network and Community (THINC), NCT00225563, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00225563?term=Kaushal&rank=6 .

Dataset Information

In-office laryngeal procedures (IOLP) in Canada: current safety practices and procedural care.

Publications

In-office laryngeal procedures (IOLP) in Canada: current safety practices and procedural care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets