General practitioner follow-up of children undergoing grommet insertion. Can it work?

Parental satisfaction with an advanced audiology-led triage service in paediatric ENT outpatient clinics

OBJECTIVE

The advanced audiology-led service is designed to triage and manage children who are referred to Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) outpatient services with middle ear or hearing concerns. This service has resulted in shorter waiting times for children to receive ENT treatment, and improved ENT capacity. The aim of this study was to explore parental satisfaction with the advanced audiology-led ENT service and to determine if there were cultural or process factors affecting satisfaction.

DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional study using a modified Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ-9) survey.

STUDY SAMPLE

One hundred and thirteen parents of children consecutively attending a first appointment in the advanced audiology-led service recruited between October 2016 and October 2017.

RESULTS

There were a total of 100 valid responses (rate of 88.5%). The survey showed high levels of satisfaction. Satisfaction scores were significantly higher for items related to interactions with the audiologist compared to items related to waiting times. There were no differences in satisfaction across cultural groups. Parents were equally satisfied with the service whether their child was managed independently by the audiologist or required another appointment for medical input.

CONCLUSIONS

The advanced audiology-led service had high levels of satisfaction from parents attending with their children.

Follow-up care after grommet insertion in children: Review article

BACKGROUND

Grommet insertion is a common procedure in children. A lengthy otolaryngology follow-up can have an adverse impact on clinic waiting times, new patient appointment availability, and pecuniary disadvantage for the hospital.

OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW

To consolidate research and opinion concerning follow-up care following grommet insertion in a pediatric population.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The literature between January 1990 and September 2015 was searched on MEDLINE (Ovid), Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Guidelines and consensus of opinion from the United States advocate that an initial post-operative review should take place within 4 weeks, and subsequent appointments every 6 months until grommet extrusion. Recent audit reports from the United Kingdom have shown that some groups arrange their first post-operative review at 3 months, and subsequent appointments vary considerably from no further follow-up to up to 24 months. Up to 75% of follow-up appointments were scheduled despite normal audiometry and clinical findings after grommet insertion, suggesting a large cohort of patients may undergo unnecessary specialist clinic reviews. General practioners (GP), audiologists or specialist nurses are potential alternative providers of regular reviews to ensure normal hearing thresholds and an adequate tympanic membrane healing course.

CONCLUSION

Follow-up schedules are largely driven by consensus of opinion. A significant number of follow-up appointments in otolaryngology clinic appear to be redundant. Recently attention has been drawn to earlier discharge from otolaryngology clinic with subsequent follow-up in less resource and cost intensive clinics coordinated by GPs, audiologist or nurses, which may help alleviate some outpatient workload on acute hospital trusts.

Post-surgical tympanostomy tube follow up with audiology: experience at the Freeman Hospital

Background:

Tympanostomy tube (grommet) insertion is a common procedure, with little guidance in the current literature regarding post-operative surveillance. Our institution implemented a protocol to follow up post-surgical grommet patients via audiology at six weeks.

Methods:

A retrospective audit of all patients less than 16 years old who had undergone grommet insertion during a three-month period.

Results:

A total of 149 patients had grommets inserted. Exclusion criteria left a cohort of 123 individuals; 82 (67 per cent) were followed up by audiology. Of these, 13 (11 per cent) did not attend follow up, and were discharged; 53 (43 per cent) were discharged from audiology with normal thresholds; and 16 (13 per cent) were referred back to a consultant. Therefore, the overall reduction in patients followed up by an otolaryngologist was 54 per cent.

Conclusion:

We recommend a six-week follow up with audiology following grommet insertion, allowing for referral back to ENT services in the event of related complications.

Follow up after middle-ear ventilation tube insertion: what is needed and when?

Introduction:

There is a paucity of evidence to guide the post-operative follow up of patients undergoing middle-ear ventilation tube insertion for the first time. This study was conceived to identify current practice at our institution (Ninewells Hospital, Dundee) and to inform subsequent change in our follow-up procedure.

Methods:

Two cycles of data collection and analysis were performed. All paediatric patients undergoing ventilation tube insertion for the first time were identified. Patients who had previously undergone ventilation tube insertion or additional procedures such as adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy were excluded. The first data collection period comprised all of the year 2000, and the second 18 months over 2003–2004. A minimum of 20 months' follow up was allowed for. Data regarding clinical findings and audiometry were recorded at each follow-up appointment.

Results:

We identified a total of 50 patients meeting our criteria for inclusion in the first cohort. There were a total of 156 appointments between surgery and data collection (a mean of 3.12 per child). A total of 113 (72 per cent) appointments lead to no medical intervention. The only statistically significant difference between patients requiring further ventilation tube insertion (n = 10) and those not requiring further treatment during the study period (n = 40) was the average hearing threshold (p < 0.01). These findings prompted a change in the post-operative regime; all patients undergoing ventilation tube insertion were subsequently seen at three months for a pure tone audiogram, and further review depended on clinical and audiometric findings. Records for 84 children were identified and collected for the second cohort, there were a total of 154 appointments (a mean of 1.83 per child). In only 18 appointments (12 per cent) were normal findings and hearing recorded and children given a further review appointment. Sixteen of 29 (55 per cent) children with abnormal clinical findings (otorrhoea, tube blockage or extrusion) required some form of intervention (p < 0.05). Twenty-six had a mean hearing threshold worse than 20 dB at first review. Nineteen (73 per cent) required further intervention of some sort (p < 0.01).

Conclusions:

Our study demonstrated that the vast majority of review appointments resulted in no clinical intervention. We therefore question the need for regular follow up in this patient group. Twenty per cent (10 of 50 and 18 of 84) of our patients required further ventilation tube insertion within the study periods. This is consistent with rates reported in the literature. Children with abnormal clinical findings or a mean hearing threshold greater than 20 dB were significantly more likely to require further intervention. We would recommend one post-operative review with audiometry, three months after surgery. At this initial appointment, further review should be offered to those children with poor hearing, early extrusion, blockage or infection, as they are more likely to require further ventilation tube insertion. This strategy is dependent on good links with community primary care providers and easy access to secondary care for further management, should this be required.