Single-use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience.

Andrew Jay Bowen, Robert James Macielak, Wanda Fussell, Sarah Yeakel, Ryan McMillan, Andrew Goates, Andrew Awadallah, Dale C Ekbom
Author Information
  1. Andrew Jay Bowen: Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison United States. ORCID
  2. Robert James Macielak: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA. ORCID
  3. Wanda Fussell: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
  4. Sarah Yeakel: Department of Orthopedic Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
  5. Ryan McMillan: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
  6. Andrew Goates: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
  7. Andrew Awadallah: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
  8. Dale C Ekbom: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA. ORCID

Abstract

Objectives: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single-use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured.
Methods: Eighteen residents performed consults with both single-use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five-question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12-week period using a five-point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four-point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems.
Results: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2,  < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1,  < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1,  < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1,  < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6,  < .001). Residents rated single-use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68,  < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89,  = .003), while patients rated single-use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1,  < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1,  < .001).
Conclusion: Resident and patient experience feedback favored single-use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults.
Level of Evidence: 4.

Keywords

References

Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2020 Dec 10;6(1):88-93 [PMID: 33614935]
Am J Infect Control. 2007 Oct;35(8):536-44 [PMID: 17936146]
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004 Jun;130(6):681-5 [PMID: 15195052]
Am J Otolaryngol. 2023 May-Jun;44(3):103816 [PMID: 36867941]
J Laryngol Otol. 2020 Sep 28;:1-8 [PMID: 32985399]
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023 Dec 19;9(1):e1203 [PMID: 38362188]
J Emerg Med. 2017 Mar;52(3):324-331 [PMID: 27979641]

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By