Dataset Information

Designing and validating a low-cost real time locating system to continuously assess patient wait times.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Outpatient clinics lack infrastructure to easily measure and understand patient wait times. Our objective was to design a low-cost, portable passive real time locating system within an outpatient clinic setting to measure patient wait times and patient-provider interactions.

Materials and methods

Direct observation was used to determine workflow in an outpatient glaucoma clinic at the University of Michigan. We used off-the shelf, antenna-integrated ultra-high frequency (UHF) RFID readers (ThingMagic, Astra-Ex, Woburn, MA) and UHF re-useable passive RFID tags (Zebra Impinj Monza 4QT, Seattle, WA). We designed a custom RFID management application in the Java programming language that was equipped with 'live' device administration to collect time and location data from patients and providers. These hardware choices enabled low cost system installation. Hidden Markov Modeling (HMM) was used to smooth patient and provider location data. Location data were validated against direct observations and EHR evaluation.

Results

The HMM smoothed RFID system data accurately predicted patient location 80.6% of the time and provider location 79.1% of the time, compared to direct observation locations, an improvement over the raw RFID location data (65.0% and 77.9% accurate, respectively). Patient process time was on average 42.8 min (SD = 27.5) and wait time was 47.9 min (SD = 33.1). The installation and recurring capital costs of the system are approximately 10% of available commercially-supplied patient/provider tracking systems.

Discussion

Passive RFID time study systems can enable real-time localization of people in clinic, facilitating continuous capture of patient wait times and patient-provider interactions. The system must be tailored to the clinic to accurately reflect patient and provider movement.

Conclusions

Capturing wait time data continuously and passively can empower continuous clinical quality improvement initiatives to enhance the patient experience.

SUBMITTER: Newman-Casey PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7324007 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing rates of obesity have led to growing demand for bariatric surgery. This has implications for wait times, particularly in publicly funded programs. This study examined the impact of patient and operational factors on wait times in a multidisciplinary bariatric surgery program.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted involving patients who were referred to a tertiary care centre (University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto) for bariatric surgery between June 2008 and July 2011. Patient characteristics, dates of clinical assessments and records describing operational changes were collected. Univariable analysis and multivariable log-linear and parametric time-to-event regressions were performed to determine whether patient and operational covariates were associated with the wait time for bariatric surgery (i.e., length of preoperative evaluation).ResultsOf the 1664 patients included in the analysis, 724 underwent surgery with a mean wait time of 440 (standard deviation 198) days and a median wait time of 445 (interquartile range 298-533) days. Wait times ranged from 3 months to 4 years. Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that patients with active substance use (β = 0.3482, p = 0.02) and individuals who entered the program in more recent operational periods (β = 0.2028, p < 0.001) had longer wait times. Additionally, the median time-to-surgery increased over 3 discrete operational periods (characterized by specific program changes related to scheduling and staffing levels, and varying referral rates and defined surgical targets; p < 0.001).InterpretationSome patients could be identified at referral as being at risk for longer wait times. We also found that previous operational decisions significantly increased the wait time in the program since its inception. Therefore, careful consideration must be devoted to process-level decision-making for multistage bariatric surgical programs, because managerial and procedural changes can affect timely access to treatment.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether a collaborative model of care that uses task-sharing for the management of low-risk diabetic retinopathy, Community Eye Care (C-EYE-C), can improve access to care and better use resources, compared with hospital-based care.DesignRetrospective audit of medical and financial records to compare two models of care.SettingA large, urban tertiary Australian publicly funded hospital.InterventionC-EYE-C is a collaborative care model, involving community-based optometrist assessment and 'virtual review' by ophthalmologists to manage low-risk patients. The C-EYE-C model of care was implemented from January to October 2017.ParticipantsNew low-risk patient referrals with diabetes received at a tertiary hospital ophthalmology unit.Primary and secondary outcomesHistorical standard hospital care was compared with C-EYE-C for attendance, wait-times, outcomes and costs. Clinical concordance between the optometrist and ophthalmologist diagnosis and management was assessed using weighted kappa statistic.ResultsThere were 133 new low-risk referrals, managed in standard hospital care (n=68) and C-EYE-C (n=65). Attendance rates were similar between the models of care (72.1% hospital vs 67.7% C-EYE-C, p=0.71). C-EYE-C had shorter appointment wait-time (53 vs 118 days, p<0.01). In the C-EYE-C model of care, 68.2% of patients did not require hospital appointments and costs were 43% less than hospital care. There was substantial agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists for diagnosis (κ=0.64, CI 0.47-0.81) and management (κ=0.66, CI 0.45-0.87).ConclusionThis Australian study showed that collaborative eye care resulted in reduced patient waiting times and considerable cost-savings, while maintaining a high standard of patient care compared with traditional hospital-based care in the management of low-risk hospital referrals with diabetic eye disease. The improved access and reduced costs were largely the result of better task allocation through greater utilisation of primary eye care professionals to provide services for low-risk patients. Better resource use may free up further resources for other eye care services.

Project description:BackgroundNonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) affects many Canadians. Although morbidity and mortality are rare, the burden to patients and the health-care system is significant. This study aims to evaluate current plastic surgery wait times and care pathways for patients with NMSC in Southwestern Ontario.MethodsA retrospective chart review of 225 patients treated in Ontario from 2015 to 2018 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included patients with an NMSC managed with surgical excision. Referral information was compared. Primary outcomes were wait times: from referral to consultation, referral to excision, and consultation to excision. Data were analyzed using Student t test with equal variance.ResultsOne-hundred forty-three patients were included from the academic cohort and 82 from the community cohort. Referrals to academic and community surgeons included lesion location (90% and 97.6%, respectively), but less frequently included size (18% and 29.2%, respectively). Most referrals to academic surgeons included biopsy results (78.6%), as opposed to community referrals (25.6%). Patients in the academic cohort waited 15.3 ± 12.7 weeks from referral to consultation, and 15.7 ± 13 weeks from referral to excision. Patients from the community cohort waited significantly shorter periods of 4.9 ± 3.1 (P < .001) and 11.7 ± 9.9 weeks (P = .016), respectively. However, patients of the academic cohort waited 2.4 ± 7.1 weeks from consultation to excision, while patients in the community cohort waited 6.7 ± 9.6 weeks (P < .001). Rates of negative peripheral margins on pathology were similar between groups, at 89.5% of the academic cohort and 88.9% of the community cohort. Deep margins were positive 5.7% of the time at the academic sites and 6.2% of the time in the community.ConclusionsPatients referred to academic centres waited significantly longer periods of time in several parameters compared to those referred to a community surgeon. However, academic surgeons often had expedited consultation-to-excision time frame. This study provides important data for future quality improvement initiatives in NMSC care.