4.7 Article

Allocation of Physician Time in Ambulatory Practice: A Time and Motion Study in 4 Specialties

期刊

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 165, 期 11, 页码 753-+

出版社

AMER COLL PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.7326/M16-0961

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Medical Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Little is known about how physician time is allocated in ambulatory care. Objective: To describe how physician time is spent in ambulatory practice. Design: Quantitative direct observational time and motion study (during office hours) and self-reported diary (after hours). Setting: U.S. ambulatory care in 4 specialties in 4 states (Illinois, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Washington). Participants: 57 U. S. physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, cardiology, and orthopedics who were observed for 430 hours, 21 of whom also completed after-hours diaries. Measurements: Proportions of time spent on 4 activities (direct clinical face time, electronic health record [EHR] and desk work, administrative tasks, and other tasks) and self-reported afterhours work. Results: During the office day, physicians spent 27.0% of their total time on direct clinical face time with patients and 49.2% of their time on EHR and desk work. While in the examination room with patients, physicians spent 52.9% of the time on direct clinical face time and 37.0% on EHR and desk work. The 21 physicians who completed after-hours diaries reported 1 to 2 hours of after-hours work each night, devoted mostly to EHR tasks. Limitations: Data were gathered in self-selected, high-performing practices and may not be generalizable to other settings. The descriptive study design did not support formal statistical comparisons by physician and practice characteristics. Conclusion: For every hour physicians provide direct clinical face time to patients, nearly 2 additional hours is spent on EHR and desk work within the clinic day. Outside office hours, physicians spend another 1 to 2 hours of personal time each night doing additional computer and other clerical work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据