ArticlePloS one2015
A time study of physicians' work in a German university eye hospital to estimate unit costs.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Job performance in healthcare: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Capacity Planning of Virtual Wards for Frail and Elderly Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Review
- Determinants of Length of Stay in a Psychiatric Ward: a Retrospective Chart Review.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2020Article
- Article
- Work-Time Distribution of Physicians at a German University Hospital.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
- Predictors of length of stay in psychiatry: analyses of electronic medical records.BMC psychiatry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnical efficiency of hospital services is debated since performance has been heterogeneous. Staff time represents the main resource in patient care and its inappropriate allocation has been identified as a key factor of inefficiency. The aim of this study was to analyse the utilisation of physicians' work time stratified by staff groups, tasks and places of work. A further aim was to use these data to estimate resource use per unit of output.
methodsA self-reporting work-sampling study was carried during 14-days at a University Eye Hospital. Staff costs of physicians per unit of output were calculated at the wards, the operating rooms and the outpatient unit.
resultsForty per cent of total work time was spent in contact with the patient. Thirty per cent was spent with documentation tasks. Time spent with documentation tasks declined monotonically with increasing seniority of staff. Unit costs were 56 € per patient day at the wards, 77 € and 20 € per intervention at the operating rooms for inpatients and outpatients, respectively, and 33 € per contact at the outpatient unit. Substantial differences in resources directly dedicated to the patient were found between these locations.
conclusionThe presented data provide unprecedented units costs in inpatient Ophthalmology. Future research should focus on analysing factors that influence differences in time allocation, such as types of patients, organisation of care processes and composition of staff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.