2016 年至 2019 年当代垂体护理中门诊的时间负担。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1177/19458924241242198
Rose C Dimitroyannis, Thomas F Cyberski, Neil S Kondamuri, Sean P Polster, Paramita Das, Peleg M Horowitz, Christopher R Roxbury
{"title":"2016 年至 2019 年当代垂体护理中门诊的时间负担。","authors":"Rose C Dimitroyannis, Thomas F Cyberski, Neil S Kondamuri, Sean P Polster, Paramita Das, Peleg M Horowitz, Christopher R Roxbury","doi":"10.1177/19458924241242198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The concept of \"time toxicity\" has emerged to address the impact of time spent in the healthcare system; however, little work has examined the phenomenon in the field of otolaryngology.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To validate the use of Evaluation and Management (E/M) current procedural terminology codes as a method to assess time burden and to pilot this tool to characterize the time toxicity of office visits associated with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma between 2016 and 2019.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of outpatient office visits quantified differences between timestamps documenting visit length and their associated E/M code visit length. The IBM MarketScan database was queried to identify patients with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma in 2016 and to analyze their new and return claims between 2016 and 2019. One-way ANOVA and two-sample t-tests were used to examine claim quantity, time in office, and yearly visit time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the validation study, estimated visit time via E/M codes and actual visit time were statistically different (<i>P</i> < 0.01), with E/M codes underestimating actual time spent in 79.0% of visits. In the MarketScan analysis, in 2016, 2099 patients received a primary diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. There were 8490 additional-related claims for this cohort from 2016 to 2019. The plurality of new office visits were with endocrinologists (n = 857; 29.3%). Total time spent in office decreased yearly, from a mean of 113 min (2016) to 69 min (2019) (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>E/M codes underestimate the length of outpatient visits; therefore, time toxicity experienced by pituitary patients may be greater than reported. Further studies are needed to develop additional assessment tools for time toxicity and promote increased efficiency of care for patients with pituitary adenomas.</p>","PeriodicalId":7650,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Time Burden of Office Visits in Contemporary Pituitary Care, 2016 to 2019.\",\"authors\":\"Rose C Dimitroyannis, Thomas F Cyberski, Neil S Kondamuri, Sean P Polster, Paramita Das, Peleg M Horowitz, Christopher R Roxbury\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19458924241242198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The concept of \\\"time toxicity\\\" has emerged to address the impact of time spent in the healthcare system; however, little work has examined the phenomenon in the field of otolaryngology.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To validate the use of Evaluation and Management (E/M) current procedural terminology codes as a method to assess time burden and to pilot this tool to characterize the time toxicity of office visits associated with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma between 2016 and 2019.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of outpatient office visits quantified differences between timestamps documenting visit length and their associated E/M code visit length. The IBM MarketScan database was queried to identify patients with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma in 2016 and to analyze their new and return claims between 2016 and 2019. One-way ANOVA and two-sample t-tests were used to examine claim quantity, time in office, and yearly visit time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the validation study, estimated visit time via E/M codes and actual visit time were statistically different (<i>P</i> < 0.01), with E/M codes underestimating actual time spent in 79.0% of visits. In the MarketScan analysis, in 2016, 2099 patients received a primary diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. There were 8490 additional-related claims for this cohort from 2016 to 2019. The plurality of new office visits were with endocrinologists (n = 857; 29.3%). Total time spent in office decreased yearly, from a mean of 113 min (2016) to 69 min (2019) (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>E/M codes underestimate the length of outpatient visits; therefore, time toxicity experienced by pituitary patients may be greater than reported. Further studies are needed to develop additional assessment tools for time toxicity and promote increased efficiency of care for patients with pituitary adenomas.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19458924241242198\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19458924241242198","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:时间毒性 "这一概念的出现是为了解决在医疗保健系统中花费的时间所产生的影响;然而,在耳鼻喉科领域却很少有人研究过这一现象:目的:验证使用评估与管理(E/M)当前程序术语代码作为评估时间负担的方法,并试用这一工具来描述 2016 年至 2019 年期间与垂体腺瘤诊断相关的门诊时间毒性:一项门诊就诊的回顾性队列研究量化了记录就诊时长的时间戳与相关E/M代码就诊时长之间的差异。通过查询 IBM MarketScan 数据库,确定了 2016 年诊断为垂体腺瘤的患者,并分析了他们在 2016 年至 2019 年期间的新报销单和返还报销单。采用单因素方差分析和双样本 t 检验来研究索赔数量、诊室时间和年度就诊时间:在验证研究中,通过 E/M 代码估算的就诊时间与实际就诊时间存在统计学差异(P P 结论:E/M 代码低估了就诊时间:E/M 代码低估了门诊就诊时间;因此,垂体瘤患者经历的时间毒性可能大于报告的时间毒性。需要进一步研究开发更多的时间毒性评估工具,提高垂体腺瘤患者的护理效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Time Burden of Office Visits in Contemporary Pituitary Care, 2016 to 2019.

Background: The concept of "time toxicity" has emerged to address the impact of time spent in the healthcare system; however, little work has examined the phenomenon in the field of otolaryngology.

Objective: To validate the use of Evaluation and Management (E/M) current procedural terminology codes as a method to assess time burden and to pilot this tool to characterize the time toxicity of office visits associated with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma between 2016 and 2019.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of outpatient office visits quantified differences between timestamps documenting visit length and their associated E/M code visit length. The IBM MarketScan database was queried to identify patients with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma in 2016 and to analyze their new and return claims between 2016 and 2019. One-way ANOVA and two-sample t-tests were used to examine claim quantity, time in office, and yearly visit time.

Results: In the validation study, estimated visit time via E/M codes and actual visit time were statistically different (P < 0.01), with E/M codes underestimating actual time spent in 79.0% of visits. In the MarketScan analysis, in 2016, 2099 patients received a primary diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. There were 8490 additional-related claims for this cohort from 2016 to 2019. The plurality of new office visits were with endocrinologists (n = 857; 29.3%). Total time spent in office decreased yearly, from a mean of 113 min (2016) to 69 min (2019) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: E/M codes underestimate the length of outpatient visits; therefore, time toxicity experienced by pituitary patients may be greater than reported. Further studies are needed to develop additional assessment tools for time toxicity and promote increased efficiency of care for patients with pituitary adenomas.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.50%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication committed to expanding knowledge and publishing the best clinical and basic research within the fields of Rhinology & Allergy. Its focus is to publish information which contributes to improved quality of care for patients with nasal and sinus disorders. Its primary readership consists of otolaryngologists, allergists, and plastic surgeons. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials, and review articles.
期刊最新文献
Doing the Rhinologic Work, From Humans to Mice to Robots. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Promotes Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase Expression Contributes to Development of Allergic Rhinitis. Malvidin From Malva sylvestris L. Ameliorates Allergic Responses in Ovalbumin-Induced Allergic Rhinitis Mouse Model via the STAT6/GATA3 Pathway. Comparative Effectiveness of Dupilumab Versus Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Polyps: Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. The Evaluation Value of the Modified Lund-Kennedy Nasal Endoscopy Score on the Efficacy of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1