Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Changes to physician processing times in response to clinic congestion and patient punctuality: a retrospective study
  1. Chester G Chambers1,
  2. Maqbool Dada1,
  3. Shereef Elnahal2,
  4. Stephanie Terezakis2,
  5. Theodore DeWeese2,
  6. Joseph Herman2,
  7. Kayode A Williams3
  1. 1Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  2. 2Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  3. 3Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kayode A Williams; kwilli64{at}jhmi.edu

Abstract

Objectives We examine interactions among 3 factors that affect patient waits and use of overtime in outpatient clinics: clinic congestion, patient punctuality and physician processing rates. We hypothesise that the first 2 factors affect physician processing rates, and this adaptive physician behaviour serves to reduce waiting times and the use of overtime.

Setting 2 urban academic clinics and an affiliated suburban clinic in metropolitan Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Participants Appointment times, patient arrival times, start of service and physician processing times were collected for 105 visits at a low-volume suburban clinic 1, 264 visits at a medium-volume academic clinic 2 and 22 266 visits at a high-volume academic clinic 3 over 3 distinct spans of time.

Intervention Data from the first clinic were previously used to document an intervention to influence patient punctuality. This included a policy that tardy patients were rescheduled.

Primary and secondary outcome measures Clinicians' processing times were gathered, conditioned on whether the patient or clinician was tardy to test the first hypothesis. Probability distributions of patient unpunctuality were developed preintervention and postintervention for the clinic in which the intervention took place and these data were used to seed a discrete-event simulation.

Results Average physician processing times differ conditioned on tardiness at clinic 1 with p=0.03, at clinic 2 with p=10−5 and at clinic 3 with p=10−7. Within the simulation, the adaptive physician behaviour degrades system performance by increasing waiting times, probability of overtime and the average amount of overtime used. Each of these changes is significant at the p<0.01 level.

Conclusions Processing times differed for patients in different states in all 3 settings studied. When present, this can be verified using data commonly collected. Ignoring these behaviours leads to faulty conclusions about the efficacy of efforts to improve clinic flow.

  • Ambulatory care
  • Computer simulation
  • Patient flow

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • All work is attributed to this department and institution and support was provided solely from institutional and/or departmental sources.

  • Contributors CGC helped design the study, conduct the study, data analysis, prepare the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. MD helped design the study, conduct the study, data analysis, prepare the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. SE helped with data collection and approved the final manuscript. ST helped with data collection and approved the final manuscript. TD helped conduct the study, review the data, prepare the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. JH helped conduct the study, prepare the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. KAW helped design the study, conduct the study, prepare the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All data are available via email with the corresponding author.