ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016
[Analysis of patient waiting times in a polyclinic for surgery].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Discordance between 'actual' and 'scheduled' check-in times at a heart failure clinic.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWaiting times are a negative aspect for patients and therefore have a major influence on patient satisfaction. The aim of this research study was to evaluate waiting times from registration until first contact with a doctor in the outpatient department of the Polyclinic for Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery of the University Hospital Marburg. MATERIAL AND
methodsWaiting times for 253 patients in the outpatient department were measured over a time period of 3 months. The mean age was 59.6 years (range 13-91 years). Patients were asked if they were satisfied with the waiting time and whether waiting time is a criterion in the choice of hospital.
resultsThe mean waiting time of all 253 patients was 61 min, 48 (19 %) patients had to wait less than 15 min, 42 (16.6 %) patients 15-30 min, 57 (22.5 %) patients 30-60 min, 65 (25.7 %) patients 60-120 min, 36 (14.2 %) patients 120-240 min and 5 (2 %) patients had to wait 240-300 min. The mean waiting time was 109 min in the group of dissatisfied patients, whereas satisfied patients had a mean waiting time of 46 min (p = 0.000). We further evaluated patient satisfaction in correlation with waiting times at a cut-off of 30 min. Of the patients 163 had to wait more than 30 min whereby 106 (65 %) patients out of this group evaluated the waiting time as appropriate and 57 (35 %) as unsatisfactory. A total of 90 patients had to wait 30 min or less whereby 88 (97.8 %) patients out of this group were satisfied with the waiting time and 2 (2.2 %) were dissatisfied (p = 0.000). For 144 (56.9 %) out of the 253 patients the waiting time was a major criterion in the choice of hospital.
conclusionShort waiting times play an important role in patient satisfaction and therefore represent a major competitive factor. From our results we concluded that a waiting time of 30 min should not be exceeded in order to maintain a high patient satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27392761What 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.