Adjustment of Health-Care Service Delivery Among Phoniatricians and ENT Specialists During the COVID-19 Pandemic, A UEP Survey.
Mariam S Shadi, John S Rubin, Ahmed Geneid and 2 others
PMID 34172361WHAT IT FOUND
During the first wave, 154 phoniatricians and ENT physicians widely changed practice: most postponed elective care, screened patients, used PPE, and shifted some visits to telemedicine, but practices varied by region.
Key findings
01After exclusions, 154 responses were analysed; 98 participants (63.6%) always screened patients for COVID-19 symptoms and directed those with suggestive symptoms to the emergency department rather than providing them directly with health service.
02During endoscopy or surgery, 129 participants (83.8%) used a camera connected to the endoscope rather than direct visualization, 121 (78.6%) put on complete PPE, 110 (71.4%) limited staff, and 70 (45.5%) asked for SARS-CoV-2 testing before surgery or procedures.
03Participants accepted urgent consultations most often for suspected malignancy (135, 87.7%), airway compromise (122, 79.2%), neonates with feeding and swallowing problems (103, 66.9%), acute dysphagia (88, 57.1%), and likely dysphagia complications (87, 56.5%).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a self-reported online survey, not an audit of actual patient care, so it describes what physicians said they did rather than what happened. Responses came mainly through the Union of European Phoniatricians and related channels, so it may not represent all voice, ENT, or swallowing clinicians. The survey ran in June 2020 during the first wave, before wider vaccination and later guidance, so current practice may differ. Of 202 respondents, 46 were working only from home and stopped, 1 was incomplete, and 1 was a pediatric audiologist, leaving 154 analysed; this may affect generalisability. Some regional groups were small, especially Eastern Europe with 15 participants, so group differences should be read cautiously. The paper reports no patient outcomes, so it cannot show whether these adjustments improved safety or care.
Declared interests
The authors reported no specific funding and no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that these changes reduced infection risk or improved care. The survey reports what physicians said they did during the first wave and did not measure patient or staff outcomes.