The Relationship Between Patient’s Waiting Time and Office-Based Practice Satisfaction

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Research Methods
Relevance of the Research
Type of Research
Sampling
Practicality of the Research
Improvements to the Study
Clarity of the Article
Further Research
Conclusion
Reference

The article titled, “The Relationship between Patient’s Waiting Time and Office-Based Practice Satisfaction” by Camacho, Anderson, Safrit, Jones, and Hoffmann (2006) dealt with the issue of patient waiting time and its impact on patient satisfaction. The research problem identified by the authors came from the perceived correlation between patient waiting time and patient satisfaction. The authors indicated that most of the existing research dealt with waiting time in emergency rooms. For this reason, the authors sought to find out how waiting time affected patient satisfaction in primary care and specialty care facilities, in outpatient settings (Camacho, Anderson, Safrit, Jones, & Hoffmann, 2006). The setting they chose for research was the clinic network operated by the Wake Field University. The authors sought to establish the relationship between patient waiting time and patient satisfaction by developing experimental measures to compute the degree of satisfaction associated with waiting time.

The hypothesis used by the authors was that waiting time in hospitals affects patient satisfaction. In fact, the authors were not seeking to prove this assertion. Rather, the authors were looking for a means of quantifying the level of dissatisfaction. In other words, the authors wanted to develop a numeric model that can predict the amount of dissatisfaction associated with patient waiting time.

Research Methods

The authors referred to the study as “observational and cross-sectional” (Camacho, Anderson, Safrit, Jones, & Hoffmann, 2006, p. 1). Essentially, this meant that the authors used observation as their primary data collection method. It also meant that they collected the data from a cross-section of respondents. The researchers collected data using a handheld computer.

The authors do not provide an elaborate literature review for the study. However, the authors maintain constant reference to various academic sources throughout the report. This was an interesting approach to literature review because many researchers prefer to review literature within one section. The decision to spread the literature used in this project across the entire article shows that there might have been very little literature relevant to the project. The authors themselves claimed that most literature in existence dealt with the waiting time in emergency rooms, and not in outpatient facilities. It is likely that the authors felt the need to carry out a study with minimal influence from existing literature.

Relevance of the Research

The research was very relevant to the current healthcare climate. Healthcare providers are under increasing pressure to find better ways of offering health services that can help to increase access to healthcare. In addition, they are under pressure to bring down healthcare costs. Operational efficiency can help healthcare providers to increase the number of patients they handle per unit time. The issue of waiting time has greater consequences in emergency departments because of the risks associated with delays in the emergency rooms. However, waiting time in primary healthcare facilities and specialty care facilities has an impact on patient satisfaction. In this sense, there is need to examine the impact of waiting time on patient satisfaction. Waiting time can give a healthcare facility the competitive advantage needed to stay afloat in the current economic climate.

Type of Research

The type of research chosen by the authors was experimental. The researchers developed an experimental design to handle the information needs of the project. The researchers were interested in collecting primary data for use in the research project. They collected data using a handheld computer.

Sampling

The researchers used a validated survey methodology for data collection (Camacho, Anderson, Safrit, Jones, & Hoffmann, 2006). This was important because it was the best way of collecting data from the sample population. The researchers collected data from 18 primary and specialty care clinics at the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (Camacho, Anderson, Safrit, Jones, & Hoffmann, 2006). The researchers collected data from 2,535 patients who visited the specialty and primary care clinics covered in the study. All the respondents were more that 16 years old. In summary, the researchers chose the sample size based on the number of patients visiting the clinics operated by the Wake Field University.

The sample was very appropriate for the research because the sample size made it possible for the researchers to measure satisfaction levels effectively. The researchers were focusing on patient satisfaction in the clinics operated by the Wake Field University. The decision to collect the data on site ensured that the researchers collected data just when the respondents were experiencing either satisfaction or dissatisfaction because of the waiting time.

The researchers mentioned in their report that there was a risk that the results may be unreliable because of possible selection bias. The researchers did not indicate why they felt that there might be selection bias in their work. This admission is enough to conclude that the results should be viewed with caution.

Practicality of the Research

This research had strong practical elements. The practicality of this research was that it made it possible for any healthcare facility to design its efficiency model that takes into account the impact of waiting time on patient satisfaction. The research results made it possible for any healthcare manager to design a more efficient patient flow models for use in a healthcare facility. The researchers have developed a model that any primary or specialty care facilities can use to design their patient flow model. In this sense, the researchers believe that they have given healthcare managers the tools they need to develop strong patient flow models for use in their facilities.

Improvements to the Study

The researchers could have done two things to improve the experimental research. First, the researchers needed to consider expanding the variety of the sample. They concentrated on one hospital only. The entire research project was done in clinics operated by the Wake Field University. While the research was very practical and covered issues of importance to contemporary healthcare, it may not be possible to generalize the results to other healthcare facilities. The condition of healthcare services in the clinics operated by the Wake Field University may have had common aspects contributing to patient satisfaction. It is also possible that other factors such as customer service at the hospital contributed towards satisfaction. Therefore, the researchers needed to consider including more healthcare facilities to reduce the bias that accrued from the selection of clinics with a common operational bond.

Secondly, the researchers needed to work harder to eliminate selection bias. The simple reason for this is that the significance of the research and the potential usefulness of the results required them to ensure their research was as accurate as possible. The fact that the results may not have been reliable was disappointing in this regard. The researchers should have done more to eliminate selection bias.

Clarity of the Article

The writing of the article was very clear and straightforward. The reasons for this are as follows. First, there was very little use of research and medical jargon in the work. The researchers were deliberate in their choice of words, making the report easy to read and comprehend. While the use of jargon is good if a report is meant for technical users, the researchers seemed interested in developing a report for use by a wider audience. Secondly, the researchers chose a very clear method of organizing the information presented in the report. The report had various sections dealing with specific issues. The researchers were able to keep related issues in the same place, making it easy for readers to focus on one issue at a time. Another issue contributing to the clarity of the work was the use of headings and section headings. The researchers chose clear headings that helped to inform readers what the subsequent paragraphs contained.

Further Research

Further research in this area is not only possible, but also necessary. The emerging landscape in healthcare service provision requires further research into more efficient ways of providing healthcare. In addition, a shift is taking place in the approaches used in the provision of healthcare. Customer care is becoming an issue of concern. This underpins the need for further research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is need to expand the research into the correlation between patient waiting time and patient satisfaction. In fact, it is important to uncover all the factors that influence patient satisfaction in patient care. In the same vein, hospitals must find ways of encouraging researchers to take on the challenge of researching into issues that can help to increase their operational efficiency. This is very crucial because of a reduction in the funding available for healthcare, and the increasing demand for healthcare services.

Reference

Camacho, F., Anderson, R., Safrit, A., Jones, A. S., & Hoffmann, P. (2006). The Relationship between Patient’s Perceived WaitingTime and Office-Based Practice Satisfaction. North Carolina Medical Journal , 409-413.

Click Here To Order Now!