Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J P Meza

Publications and source records attributed to J P Meza.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Patient preferences for laboratory test results notification.

BACKGROUND: Patients whose test results are abnormal cannot make health behavior changes until the final phase of the laboratory testing process, patient notification, has been completed. Patients whose results are normal are often not notified at all. Few studies have examined the problematic aspects of patient notification, a crucial step in a complex and expensive process. OBJECTIVE: To determine patient preferences for receiving laboratory test results. STUDY DESIGN: Patient survey by telephone. METHODS: Forty-nine patients with hypercholesterolemia who had had a lipoprotein profile performed within the previous 6 months were asked whether or not they had been informed of the test result, how they were informed, how satisfied they were with the process, and how they would prefer to be notified of results. All patients attended a clinic in suburban Detroit. Questions were read from a prepared script. RESULTS: The majority of patients (94%) preferred to receive notification of all test results: both abnormal results accompanied by recommendations for health management changes, and normal results. Preferences for type of notification included mail (59%), phone (16%), office visit (12%), other or multiple response (6%). CONCLUSION: Notification of both normal and abnormal results is of great importance to patients. Further studies are needed to determine what form of notification is most effective and which method is most satisfactory to patients.

Communication↗

Patient waiting times in a physician's office.

This observational study measured waiting times, appointment durations, and scheduling variables of a single family practice physician. Waiting time and appointment duration in four sequential groups of sessions were compared using analysis of variance; each group used different scheduling templates. Groups 1 and 2 used a 15-minute base interval; group 3 used a 20-minute base interval. Observations for group 4 were collected at a different health center using a 15-minute base interval. Scheduling variables were correlated with waiting time using correlation coefficients, and data were collected on 1783 appointments. The best waiting time (mean +/- SD) was 17.33 +/- 19.19 minutes. The mean appointment duration for this group was 17.99 +/- 7.97 minutes. The F statistic comparing the four groups of sessions for waiting times was 34.14 and for appointment duration was 37.37, both of which are significant (P < 0.001). The Spearman correlation coefficient for waiting time with queue was 0.2474 (P < 0.001). The Spearman correlation coefficients for mean waiting time and lateness of starting a session (0.4530), patients per hour (0.3461), and patients per session (0.3674) were all significant (P < 0.001). Both scheduling and patient flow affect patient waiting times. The best schedule would consist of shorter sessions that started on time and were extended to accommodate extra patients rather than adding in patients and crowding the schedule. In addition to reducing the actual waiting times, the perception of waiting can be managed to minimize patient dissatisfaction.

Appointments and Schedules↗