Search

Objectives: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Radium Society (ARS). This practice parameter provides updated reference literature regarding both clinical-based conventional total body irradiation and evolving volumetric modulated total body irradiation., Methods: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS., Results: This practice parameter provides a comprehensive update to the reference literature regarding conventional total body irradiation and modulated total body irradiation. Dependence on dose rate remains an active area of ongoing investigation in both the conventional setting (where instantaneous dose rate can be varied) and in more modern rotational techniques, in which average dose rate is the relevant variable. The role of imaging during patient setup and the role of inhomogeneity corrections due to computer-based treatment planning systems are included as evolving areas of clinical interest notably surrounding the overall dose inhomogeneity. There is increasing emphasis on the importance of evaluating mean lung dose as it relates to toxicity during high-dose total body irradiation regimens., Conclusions: This practice parameter can be used as an effective tool in designing and evaluating a total body irradiation program that successfully incorporates the close interaction and coordination among the radiation oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, nurses, and radiation therapists., Competing Interests: S.V.D.: Imaginab and Bayer support parts of investigator initiated trials. L.C.: NCI PDQ; Pediatric Oncology board. University of Alabama for COG Survivorship Guidelines. Springer Wolters Kluwer, Royalties or Licenses. University of Miami, Radiation Oncology Grand Rounds. American Society for Hematology. W.S.: Carl Zeiss, honoraria, and travel expenses for DSMB service. ACR Radiation Oncology Commission. N.R.S.: Employment relationships with South Florida Proton Therapy Institute and Rakuten-Medical Inc. (Medical Director). The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: The study's aim was to deepen our understanding of family physicians' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the widely used US documentation, coding, and billing rules for primary care evaluation and management (E/M) services., Methods: This study used in-depth, qualitative interviews of 32 family physicians in urban and rural, academic, and private practices. Interviews were initiated with a series of grand tour questions asking participants to give examples and personal narratives demonstrating cost efficiencies and cost inefficiencies relating to the E/M rules in their own practices. Investigators independently used an immersion-crystallization approach to analyze transcripts to search for unifying themes and subthemes until consensus among investigators was achieved., Results: The majority of participants reported that the documentation rules, coding rules, and common fees for procedures and preventive services were reasonable. The E/M documentation rules for all other visit types, however, were perceived by the participants as unnecessarily complicated and unclear. The existing codes did not describe the actual work for common clinic visits, which led to documenting and coding by heuristics and patterns. Participants reported inadequate payment for complex patients, multiple patient concerns in a single office visit, services requiring extra time beyond a standard office visit, non-face-to-face time, and others. The E/M rules created unintended negative consequences such as family physicians not accepting Medicare or Medicaid patients, inaccurate documentation, poor-quality care, and system inefficiencies such as unnecessary tests and referrals., Conclusions: Family physicians expressed many problems and frustrations with the existing E/M documentation, coding, and billing rules and felt the system undervalued and unappreciated them for the complex and comprehensive care they provide. Findings of this study could inform improved guidelines for primary care documentation, coding, and billing.

Objective: Bell's palsy, named after the Scottish anatomist, Sir Charles Bell, is the most common acute mono-neuropathy, or disorder affecting a single nerve, and is the most common diagnosis associated with facial nerve weakness/paralysis. Bell's palsy is a rapid unilateral facial nerve paresis (weakness) or paralysis (complete loss of movement) of unknown cause. The condition leads to the partial or complete inability to voluntarily move facial muscles on the affected side of the face. Although typically self-limited, the facial paresis/paralysis that occurs in Bell's palsy may cause significant temporary oral incompetence and an inability to close the eyelid, leading to potential eye injury. Additional long-term poor outcomes do occur and can be devastating to the patient. Treatments are generally designed to improve facial function and facilitate recovery. There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy, and some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, numerous diagnostic tests available are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy., Purpose: The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the accuracy of diagnosis for Bell's palsy, to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with Bell's palsy, and to decrease harmful variations in the evaluation and management of Bell's palsy. This guideline addresses these needs by encouraging accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitating patient follow-up to address the management of long-term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy. The guideline is intended for all clinicians in any setting who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with Bell's palsy. The target population is inclusive of both adults and children presenting with Bell's palsy. ACTION STATEMENTS: The development group made a strong recommendation that (a) clinicians should assess the patient using history and physical examination to exclude identifiable causes of facial paresis or paralysis in patients presenting with acute-onset unilateral facial paresis or paralysis, (b) clinicians should prescribe oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for Bell's palsy patients 16 years and older, (c) clinicians should not prescribe oral antiviral therapy alone for patients with new-onset Bell's palsy, and (d) clinicians should implement eye protection for Bell's palsy patients with impaired eye closure. The panel made recommendations that (a) clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory testing in patients with new-onset Bell's palsy, (b) clinicians should not routinely perform diagnostic imaging for patients with new-onset Bell's palsy, (c) clinicians should not perform electrodiagnostic testing in Bell's palsy patients with incomplete facial paralysis, and (d) clinicians should reassess or refer to a facial nerve specialist those Bell's palsy patients with (1) new or worsening neurologic findings at any point, (2) ocular symptoms developing at any point, or (3) incomplete facial recovery 3 months after initial symptom onset. The development group provided the following options: (a) clinicians may offer oral antiviral therapy in addition to oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for patients with Bell's palsy, and (b) clinicians may offer electrodiagnostic testing to Bell's palsy patients with complete facial paralysis. The development group offered the following no recommendations: (a) no recommendation can be made regarding surgical decompression for patients with Bell's palsy, (b) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of acupuncture in patients with Bell's palsy, and (c) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of physical therapy in patients with Bell's palsy.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) has published a supplement to this issue featuring the new Clinical Practice Guideline: Bell's Palsy. To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 11 recommendations developed encourage accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitate patient follow-up to address the management of long-term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy. There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy; some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, there are numerous diagnostic tests available that are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have an unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy.