RATIONALE: The interstitial lung disease (ILD) specialists in Vancouver participate in a multidisciplinary discussion (MDD) that is primarily used internally for patients seen by these specialists. The MDD is also used remotely (externally) by general pulmonologists to increase access to this service. OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of an MDD on the diagnosis and management of ILD in these two patient cohorts, and to report the satisfaction of referring pulmonologists with this service. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients who underwent MDD review between March 2014 and June 2017. Data were extracted from standardized MDD records and comparisons were made between the internal and external ILD cohorts. Pulmonologists who used the external review service completed an anonymous survey addressing their satisfaction with components of the MDD. RESULTS: The 209 internal patients and 91 external patients had similar clinical characteristics. MDD review led to a change in diagnosis in 40% of patients, including 36% of internal patients and 48% of external patients (P = 0.04). For patients without a working diagnosis, 44% were provided a confident ILD diagnosis following MDD, including 78% of patients with a surgical lung biopsy and 37% of patients without a surgical lung biopsy (P < 0.001). After MDD review, treatment was started in 45% of patients on no ILD therapy, and treatment was changed in 45% of patients on ILD therapy. Overall, 93% of the 14 respondents (out of 16 surveyed) were very or somewhat satisfied with the MDD external review service. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to previous publications, our study suggests an important role of MDD in the diagnosis and management of ILD, and further demonstrates that MDD of external patients is a viable service that allows greater and more rapid access to ILD expertise.
RATIONALE: The interstitial lung disease (ILD) specialists in Vancouver participate in a multidisciplinary discussion (MDD) that is primarily used internally for patients seen by these specialists. The MDD is also used remotely (externally) by general pulmonologists to increase access to this service. OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of an MDD on the diagnosis and management of ILD in these two patient cohorts, and to report the satisfaction of referring pulmonologists with this service. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients who underwent MDD review between March 2014 and June 2017. Data were extracted from standardized MDD records and comparisons were made between the internal and external ILD cohorts. Pulmonologists who used the external review service completed an anonymous survey addressing their satisfaction with components of the MDD. RESULTS: The 209 internal patients and 91 external patients had similar clinical characteristics. MDD review led to a change in diagnosis in 40% of patients, including 36% of internal patients and 48% of external patients (P = 0.04). For patients without a working diagnosis, 44% were provided a confident ILD diagnosis following MDD, including 78% of patients with a surgical lung biopsy and 37% of patients without a surgical lung biopsy (P < 0.001). After MDD review, treatment was started in 45% of patients on no ILD therapy, and treatment was changed in 45% of patients on ILD therapy. Overall, 93% of the 14 respondents (out of 16 surveyed) were very or somewhat satisfied with the MDD external review service. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to previous publications, our study suggests an important role of MDD in the diagnosis and management of ILD, and further demonstrates that MDD of external patients is a viable service that allows greater and more rapid access to ILD expertise.
Authors: Sydney B Montesi; Jolene H Fisher; Fernando J Martinez; Moisés Selman; Annie Pardo; Kerri A Johannson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Nevins W Todd; Sergei P Atamas; Stella E Hines; Irina G Luzina; Nirav G Shah; Edward J Britt; Andrew J Ghio; Jeffrey R Galvin Journal: Expert Rev Respir Med Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.772
Authors: Neal Dodia; Diana Amariei; Blaine Kenaa; Doug Corwin; Lydia Chelala; E James Britt; Ashutosh Sachdeva; Irina G Luzina; Jeffrey D Hasday; Nirav G Shah; Sergei P Atamas; Teri J Franks; Allen P Burke; Stella E Hines; Jeffrey R Galvin; Nevins W Todd Journal: Respir Med Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.415