The Utility and Feasibility of Extending Beyond Traditional Patient Descriptions in Daily Practice.

Objectives/hypothesis: Institutional and national programs have endorsed the use of validated instruments in daily practice, but their utility for frontline clinicians is unknown. Our first objective was thus to determine if routinely obtained patient descriptions accurately predict disease-specific validated instrument results. Our second objective was to assess the feasibility of deploying an electronic system to obtain and document patient-reported descriptions of health status.
Study Design: Prospective assessment of consecutive eligible ambulatory care patients.
Methods: For the first objective, patients presenting with the same chief complaint at consecutive visits provided concurrent routine symptom descriptions and validated instrument responses. To determine whether patients' routine descriptions predicted scores from disease-specific instruments, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity/specificity, Spearman ρ correlation, and regression models were utilized. For the second objective, feasibility assessment focused on percent with successful response capture, time to questionnaire completion, and impact on physician time needed to obtain and document patient histories.
Results: For the first objective, among patients with hearing loss, eustachian tube dysfunction, nasal obstruction, and chronic rhinosinusitis, the areas under the ROC curves were 0.38 to 0.83. Spearman ρ coefficients were 0.25 to 0.46. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 15.9% to 87.8%, with correct classification in 42.3% to 55.2% of cases. For the second objective, there was a 91% completion rate. Completion times were 7:18 to 12:37 for new patients and 3:23 to 6:41 for established patients. Physician time savings were estimated at 11 minutes per patient.
Conclusions: Using validated instruments and electronic data collection systems in daily practice has practical and clinical implications. These topics warrant further study.
Level of Evidence: 2c Laryngoscope, 130:S1-S13, 2020.
(© 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)