耳鼻喉科医生之间患者安全信息量的差异:回顾性队列研究

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1177/00034894241264114
Jacob E Hoerter, Peter M Debbaneh, Nancy Jiang
{"title":"耳鼻喉科医生之间患者安全信息量的差异:回顾性队列研究","authors":"Jacob E Hoerter, Peter M Debbaneh, Nancy Jiang","doi":"10.1177/00034894241264114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify differences in inbox and secure message burden among otolaryngologists based on demographics and subspecialty over 4 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inbox data were queried from January 2019 until December 2022. Otolaryngologists were categorized into cohorts by area of practice and gender. All inbox tasks, secure messages, and clinical encounters were collected and compared by gender, practice type, and years in practice. Means were compared using t-tests and chi-squared tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 128 physicians, 45.7% were comprehensive otolaryngologists and 61.3% were male. The most common subspecialties were facial plastics (15.6%), oncology (8.6%), and otology (7.8%). Otolaryngologists had an average of 143.5 inbox tasks per month, with 97.2 (67.7%) of them being secure messages, resulting in an average of 1.14 inbox tasks and 0.80 secure messages per clinical encounter. The ratio of secure messages per clinical encounter was consistent across all specialties except oncology (1.10, <i>P</i> = .003). Otology (0.86, <i>P</i> = .032) and facial plastics (0.95, <i>P</i> = .028) had significantly lower ratios of inbox tasks to clinical encounters when compared to their colleagues, while oncology had a higher ratio (1.70, <i>P</i> < .001). No significant differences in inbox burden were observed between genders, years in practice, or languages spoken. Secure messages steadily increased over the study period.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inbox burden for otolaryngologists primarily stems from patient secure messages and varies across subspecialties. Considerations should be made to the inbox burden of head and neck oncologists. The implementation of support systems for inbox management could improve the imbalance between clinical and non-clinical responsibilities in otolaryngology.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.</p>","PeriodicalId":50975,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Patient Secure Message Volume Among Otolaryngologists: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jacob E Hoerter, Peter M Debbaneh, Nancy Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00034894241264114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify differences in inbox and secure message burden among otolaryngologists based on demographics and subspecialty over 4 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inbox data were queried from January 2019 until December 2022. Otolaryngologists were categorized into cohorts by area of practice and gender. All inbox tasks, secure messages, and clinical encounters were collected and compared by gender, practice type, and years in practice. Means were compared using t-tests and chi-squared tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 128 physicians, 45.7% were comprehensive otolaryngologists and 61.3% were male. The most common subspecialties were facial plastics (15.6%), oncology (8.6%), and otology (7.8%). Otolaryngologists had an average of 143.5 inbox tasks per month, with 97.2 (67.7%) of them being secure messages, resulting in an average of 1.14 inbox tasks and 0.80 secure messages per clinical encounter. The ratio of secure messages per clinical encounter was consistent across all specialties except oncology (1.10, <i>P</i> = .003). Otology (0.86, <i>P</i> = .032) and facial plastics (0.95, <i>P</i> = .028) had significantly lower ratios of inbox tasks to clinical encounters when compared to their colleagues, while oncology had a higher ratio (1.70, <i>P</i> < .001). No significant differences in inbox burden were observed between genders, years in practice, or languages spoken. Secure messages steadily increased over the study period.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inbox burden for otolaryngologists primarily stems from patient secure messages and varies across subspecialties. Considerations should be made to the inbox burden of head and neck oncologists. The implementation of support systems for inbox management could improve the imbalance between clinical and non-clinical responsibilities in otolaryngology.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894241264114\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894241264114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的确定耳鼻喉科医生收件箱和安全信息负担在 4 年内因人口统计学和亚专科而存在的差异:从 2019 年 1 月至 2022 年 12 月查询收件箱数据。耳鼻喉科医生按执业领域和性别分为不同组群。收集所有收件箱任务、安全信息和临床会诊,并按性别、执业类型和执业年限进行比较。使用 t 检验和卡方检验对平均值进行比较:在 128 名医生中,45.7% 为综合耳鼻喉科医生,61.3% 为男性。最常见的亚专科是面部整形(15.6%)、肿瘤(8.6%)和耳科(7.8%)。耳鼻喉科医生每月平均有 143.5 个收件箱任务,其中 97.2 个(67.7%)是安全信息,因此每次临床会诊平均有 1.14 个收件箱任务和 0.80 个安全信息。除肿瘤科(1.10,P = .003)外,所有专科每次临床会诊的安全信息比例都是一致的。耳科(0.86,P = .032)和面部整形科(0.95,P = .028)的收件箱任务与临床就诊次数之比明显低于其他科室,而肿瘤科的收件箱任务与临床就诊次数之比更高(1.70,P 结论:耳鼻喉科和面部整形科的收件箱任务与临床就诊次数之比明显低于其他科室:耳鼻喉科医生的收件箱负担主要来自患者的安全信息,不同亚专科的收件箱负担各不相同。应考虑头颈部肿瘤科医生的收件箱负担。实施收件箱管理支持系统可以改善耳鼻喉科临床与非临床职责之间的不平衡:III级,回顾性队列研究。
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
Differences in Patient Secure Message Volume Among Otolaryngologists: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To identify differences in inbox and secure message burden among otolaryngologists based on demographics and subspecialty over 4 years.

Methods: Inbox data were queried from January 2019 until December 2022. Otolaryngologists were categorized into cohorts by area of practice and gender. All inbox tasks, secure messages, and clinical encounters were collected and compared by gender, practice type, and years in practice. Means were compared using t-tests and chi-squared tests.

Results: Of the 128 physicians, 45.7% were comprehensive otolaryngologists and 61.3% were male. The most common subspecialties were facial plastics (15.6%), oncology (8.6%), and otology (7.8%). Otolaryngologists had an average of 143.5 inbox tasks per month, with 97.2 (67.7%) of them being secure messages, resulting in an average of 1.14 inbox tasks and 0.80 secure messages per clinical encounter. The ratio of secure messages per clinical encounter was consistent across all specialties except oncology (1.10, P = .003). Otology (0.86, P = .032) and facial plastics (0.95, P = .028) had significantly lower ratios of inbox tasks to clinical encounters when compared to their colleagues, while oncology had a higher ratio (1.70, P < .001). No significant differences in inbox burden were observed between genders, years in practice, or languages spoken. Secure messages steadily increased over the study period.

Conclusion: Inbox burden for otolaryngologists primarily stems from patient secure messages and varies across subspecialties. Considerations should be made to the inbox burden of head and neck oncologists. The implementation of support systems for inbox management could improve the imbalance between clinical and non-clinical responsibilities in otolaryngology.

Level of evidence: Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

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
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
171
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology publishes original manuscripts of clinical and research importance in otolaryngology–head and neck medicine and surgery, otology, neurotology, bronchoesophagology, laryngology, rhinology, head and neck oncology and surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery, pediatric otolaryngology, audiology, and speech pathology. In-depth studies (supplements), papers of historical interest, and reviews of computer software and applications in otolaryngology are also published, as well as imaging, pathology, and clinicopathology studies, book reviews, and letters to the editor. AOR is the official journal of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association.
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Surgical Characteristics and Adverse Events of an Active, Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Device. Management of a Piriform Sinus Fistula With Chronic Neck Infection in an Adult. Mucocutaneous Leishmaniasis Rhinology Complications: A Rare Presentation. Clarifying the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Uncomplicated Pediatric Mastoiditis. Comparative Analysis of Nebulized Versus Intravenous Fentanyl for Pain Control After Tonsillectomy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial.
×
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