Background: ChatGPT is among the most popular large language models (LLMs), exhibiting proficiency in various standardized tests, including multiple-choice medical board examinations. However, its performance on otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OHNS) certification examinations and open-ended medical board certification examinations has not been reported. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on OHNS board examinations and propose a novel method to assess an AI model’s performance on open-ended medical board examination questions. Methods: Twenty-one open-ended questions were adopted from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada’s sample examination to query ChatGPT on April 11, 2023, with and without prompts. A new model, named Concordance, Validity, Safety, Competency (CVSC), was developed to evaluate its performance. Results: In an open-ended question assessment, ChatGPT achieved a passing mark (an average of 75% across 3 trials) in the attempts and demonstrated higher accuracy with prompts. The model demonstrated high concordance (92.06%) and satisfactory validity. While demonstrating considerable consistency in regenerating answers, it often provided only partially correct responses. Notably, concerning features such as hallucinations and self-conflicting answers were observed. Conclusions: ChatGPT achieved a passing score in the sample examination and demonstrated the potential to pass the OHNS certification examination of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Some concerns remain due to its hallucinations, which could pose risks to patient safety. Further adjustments are necessary to yield safer and more accurate answers for clinical implementation.

Objective: To describe the resident experience with respect to key indicator cases for each year of training.Study Design: Multi‐institution, cross‐sectional assessment.Methods: Using an electronic survey, current otolaryngology residents were solicited to complete a survey regarding their experiences with the key indicator cases to that point. The survey was sent to this cohort in the winter of 2017–2018.Results: Three hundred and three residents responded, with 293 completing the survey. Twenty‐three percent were PGY1, 19% PGY2, 21% PGY3, 18% PGY4, and 19% PGY5 or higher. The majority of residents progress from resident assistant as a PGY2, to resident surgeon as a PGY3 and self‐assessed competent surgeon as a PGY4 for the majority of the key indicator cases. Less than 50% of the surveyed PGY5 residents had reached independent practice in all the key indicator cases, with stapedectomy (16%), rhinoplasty (18%), and paramedian forehead flap (14.5%) being the cases least frequently performed independently. Ninety‐five percent of the respondent residents felt their program provided adequate training, but 20% of the respondents were either unsure or believed that they would be unable to perform all the key indicator cases by the completion of their training.Conclusions: The majority of otolaryngology residents feel confident in their training, but experience with certain cases lags behind and may not currently be taught as resident level cases. These findings raise the question of whether the current key indicator cases are the best option for assessing breadth and depth of residency training.Level of Evidence: NA

Absorbable steroid‐eluting sinus implants provide targeted corticosteroid release over a sustained period and are designed to prevent both undesirable adhesion formation and sinus ostia restenosis. Here, we highlight the key evidence of these implants to date and query a group of experts via a Delphi process on the indications and optimal timing for intraoperative or in‐office placement of these implants. Six of a total of 12 statements reached consensus and were accepted. Overall, experts largely agree that intraoperative or in‐office use of steroid‐eluting stents could be considered for patients: (1) who are diabetic or intolerant of oral steroids, (2) undergoing extended frontal sinus surgery, and (3) with recurrent stenosis. Given the lack of expert consensus on other key statements, clinicians should carefully consider these treatment options on a case‐by‐case basis after shared decision‐making.

Background: The escalating negative impact of climate change on our environment has the potential to result in significant morbidity of rhinologic diseases.Methods: Evidence based review of examples of rhinologic diseases including allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis was performed.Results: The lower socioeconomic population, including historically oppressed groups, will be disproportionately affected.Conclusions: We need a systematic approach to improve healthcare database infrastructure and funding to promote diverse scientific collaboration to address these healthcare needs.