The effect of in-office waiting time on physician visit frequency among working-age adults

Satisfaction of Clinical Waiting Time in Ear, Nose & Throat Departments of the Ministry of Health in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Patient satisfaction is a critical indicator for assessing the quality of healthcare services, as it plays a crucial role in ensuring the effective, timely, and patient-centered delivery of high-quality healthcare. Additionally, patient satisfaction has a direct relationship with clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of clinic waiting time on patient satisfaction in an Ear Nose Throat (ENT) outpatient department. A total of 241 patients who visited hospitals and ENT outpatient departments in Jeddah were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 25. The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with the waiting time at the clinic. Additionally, many patients reported being satisfied with the handling of appointments and the information they received from their friends or relatives. Significant statistical differences were observed between waiting time and demographic factors such as age, gender, employment status, and residence. Moreover, there was a statistically significant association between patient satisfaction with the appointment process and the information provided by the staff (P-value < .001). Notably, patients visiting the ENT outpatient department exhibited higher satisfaction scores. These findings hold the potential for informing quality improvement initiatives. Furthermore, it is recommended that future studies be conducted to assess patient satisfaction and provide valuable insights to policymakers and clinicians when making decisions related to healthcare delivery.

Seating in Doctors' Waiting Rooms: Has COVID-19 Changed Our Choices?

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates preference for five different seating arrangements (e.g., rows, clusters) in a doctor's office waiting room, whether these reduce stress and improve judgments of medical care, and how such choices may have changed over the pandemic (2013 vs. 2021).

BACKGROUND

What is called the doctor's office layout, with chairs lining the perimeter of the waiting room, is criticized by designers, yet little empirical evidence exists to support that assessment.

METHOD

Data collected in 2013 and 2021 used sketches of five different seating arrangements; people saw just one of these. The study examined the effect of time and seating arrangement on anxiety, need for privacy, situational awareness, evaluation of the environment, and perception of the doctor.

RESULTS

There was no significant impact of the seating arrangement on any of the dependent variables, but ratings were higher for situational awareness, need for privacy, evaluation of the environment, and aspects related to the physician in 2021. In addition, seating preferences favored end, not middle seats, and chair selections with the chair back to a wall.

CONCLUSION

In this study, no evidence exists that the doctor's office layout is less preferred than four other seating arrangements, but seat choice shows people prefer end seats (not middle seats) across arrangements. The doctor's office layout may offer a supportive familiarity to people; also, given the percentage of people who visit the doctor unaccompanied, layouts designed to encourage social interaction may not always be appropriate.

Drive-Through Urgent Care Centers: Could They Be the Future of Healthcare Facilities?

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the perception of people toward drive-through healthcare services, their willingness to use them, and the scope of services they would like to receive in a post-pandemic world.

BACKGROUND

The abrupt spread of COVID-19 urged healthcare facilities to adopt new infection-control measures. Drive-through testing facilities were implemented as one of the measures to minimize physical contact between healthcare workers and test-takers. Many studies describe drive-through models' merits, but people's opinions about them as a permanent attachment to healthcare facilities are unclear.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed through snowball sampling. The survey solicited feedback from adults who lived in the United States. The survey consisted of Likert-type and multiple-choice questions and was completed by176 eligible participants.

RESULTS

The use of drive-through pharmacies increased after the spread of COVID-19. Most people agreed drive-through healthcare services could be more convenient and safer to use. People prefer to have their vitals checked, and vaccinations received in a drive-through because of the improved infection-control matters and increased comfort; however, they are neutral about the level of privacy they have and the hygiene of drive-through healthcare settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows permanent drive-throughs offering medical services benefit people in times of crisis for the perceived infection control purposes and the improved convenience. A drive-through model can redefine the waiting experience and serve as a new safe triage system in urgent care centers. Drive-through urgent care centers can be adopted as a hybrid of telemedicine and in-person visits.

The impact of accessibility and service quality on the frequency of patient visits to the primary diabetes care provider: results from a cross-sectional survey performed in six European countries

Background

Visits to the primary diabetes care provider play a central role in diabetes care. Therefore, patients should attend their primary diabetes care providers whenever a visit is necessary. Parameters that might affect whether this condition is fulfilled include accessibility (in terms of travel distance and travel time to the practice), as well as aspects of service quality (for example in-practice waiting time and quality of the provider’s communication with the patient). The relationships of these variables with the frequency of visits to the primary diabetes care provider are investigated.

Methods

The investigation is performed with questionnaire data of 1086 type 2 diabetes patients from study regions in England (213), Finland (135), Germany (218), Greece (153), the Netherlands (296) and Spain (71). Data were collected between October 2011 and March 2012. Data were analysed using log-linear Poisson regression models with self-reported numbers of visits in a year to the primary diabetes care provider as the criterion variable. Predictor variables of the core model were: country; gender; age; education; stage of diabetes; heart problems; previous stroke; problems with lower extremities; problems with sight; kidney problems; travel distance and travel time; in-practice waiting time; and quality of communication. To test region-specific characteristics, the interaction between the latter four predictor variables and study region was also investigated.

Results

When study regions are merged, travel distance and in-practice waiting time have a negative effect, travel time no effect and quality of communication a positive effect on visit frequency (with the latter effect being by far largest). When region specific effects are considered, there are strong interaction effects shown for travel distance, in-practice waiting time and quality of communication. For travel distance, as well as for in-practice waiting time, there are region-specific effects in opposite directions. For quality of communication, there are only differences in the strength with which visit frequency increases with this variable.

Conclusions

The impact of quality of communication on visit frequency is the largest and is stable across all study regions. Hence, increasing quality of communication seems to be the best approach for increasing visit frequency.

Specialty and Lifestyle Preference Changes during Medical School

PURPOSE

Medical student specialty choices have significant downstream effects on the availability of physicians and, ultimately, the effectiveness of health systems. This study investigated how medical student specialty preferences change over time in relation to their demographics and lifestyle preferences.

METHOD

Students from ten medical schools were surveyed at matriculation (2012) and graduation (2016). The two surveys included questions about specialty and lifestyle preferences, demographics, educational background, and indebtedness. Student data from 2012 to 2016 were paired together and grouped into those whose specialty preferences remained constant or switched.

RESULTS

Response rates in 2012 and 2016 were 65% (997/1530) and 50% (788/1575), respectively. Fourth-year students ranked "enjoying the type of work I am doing" as less important to a good physician lifestyle than did first-year students (from 59.6 to 39.7%). The lifestyle factors "having control of work schedule" and "having enough time off work" were ranked as more important to fourth-year students than first-year students (from 15.6 to 18.2% and 14.8 to 31.9%, respectively). The paired dataset included 19% of eligible students (237/1226). Demographic and lifestyle factors were not significantly associated with specialty preference switching. Additionally, no significant association existed between changing lifestyle preferences and switching specialty preference (p = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

During the course of medical school, lifestyle preferences became more focused on day-to-day factors and less on deeper motivational factors. Neither demographics nor lifestyle preferences appear to relate to a student's decision to switch specialty preference during medical school. These findings represent an important step in uncovering causes of specialty preference trends.

Necessity of office visits for acute respiratory infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are the most common symptomatic reason to seek ambulatory care, but many ARI visits may not be necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the proportion of primary care ARI visits that may not require an office visit.

METHODS

We identified 58398 ARI visits to 14 primary care practices between May 2011 and May 2012 and randomly selected 500 visits, 439 of which were new ARI visits. We separated non-visit-required information [e.g. history of present illness (HPI), past medical history, etc.] from information that required an office visit (e.g. physical exam, testing, etc.). Reviewing non-visit-required information, we identified the diagnosis (HPI diagnosis) and whether office visit appeared necessary. Independently, we reviewed the visit-required information and determined if the visit changed antibiotic management.

RESULTS

Based on non-visit-required information, 72% (316/439) of visits did not appear to require an office visit. The most common diagnoses were non-specific upper respiratory infection (39%), sinusitis (24%) and acute bronchitis (22%). The HPI diagnosis was an exact match for clinicians' diagnosis in 67% (213/316) of visits. After reviewing the visit-required information, antibiotic management did not change for 87% (276/316) of visits. For the remaining 13% (40/316) for which the visit changed management, the clinician prescribed an antibiotic for an antibiotic-appropriate diagnosis (65%; 26/40); prescribed an antibiotic for a non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnosis (25%; 10/40); or avoided an antibiotic prescription for patients with an HPI diagnosis of sinusitis (10%; 4/40).

CONCLUSION

About two-thirds of primary care ARI visits may not be necessary for appropriate antibiotic management.