Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length

Mark J. Fagan, Joseph A. Diaz, Steven E. Reinert, Christopher N. Sciamanna, Dylan M. Fagan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interpretation method on outpatient visit length. DESIGN: Time-motion study. SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient teaching clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting for scheduled outpatient visits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over a 6-week study period, a research assistant recorded the following information for consecutive patient visits: patient age, gender and insurance type; type of interpreter used (none, hospital interpreter, telephone interpreter or patient-supplied interpreter); schedtried visit length; provider type (nurse practitioner; attending physician; resident in postgraduate year 1, 2 or 3, or medical student); provider gender; amount of time the patient spent in the examination room with the provider (provider time); and total time the patient spent in the clinic from check-in to checkout (clinic time). When compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using some form of interpreter had longer mean provider times (32.4 minutes [min] vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (93.6 min vs 82.4 min, P = .002). Compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using a telephone interpreter had significantly longer mean provider times (36.3 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (99.9 min vs 82.4 min, P = .02). Similarly, patients using a patient-supplied interpreter had longer mean provider times (34.4 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and mean clinic times (92.8 min vs 82.4 min, P = .027). In contrast, patients using a hospital interpreter did not have significantly different mean provider times (26.8 min vs 28.0 min, P = .51) or mean clinic times (91.0 min vs 82.4 min, P = .16) than patients not requiring an interpreter. CONCLUSION: In our setting, telephone and patient-supplied interpreters were associated with longer visit times, but full-time hospital interpreters were not.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)634-638
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of general internal medicine
Volume18
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2003

Fingerprint

Ambulatory Care
Telephone
Outpatients
Time and Motion Studies
Nurse Practitioners
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Insurance
Medical Students
Teaching

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Fagan, Mark J. ; Diaz, Joseph A. ; Reinert, Steven E. ; Sciamanna, Christopher N. ; Fagan, Dylan M. / Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length. In: Journal of general internal medicine. 2003 ; Vol. 18, No. 8. pp. 634-638.
@article{3de010c068414956a6bcbf86adf35a2f,
title = "Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interpretation method on outpatient visit length. DESIGN: Time-motion study. SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient teaching clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting for scheduled outpatient visits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over a 6-week study period, a research assistant recorded the following information for consecutive patient visits: patient age, gender and insurance type; type of interpreter used (none, hospital interpreter, telephone interpreter or patient-supplied interpreter); schedtried visit length; provider type (nurse practitioner; attending physician; resident in postgraduate year 1, 2 or 3, or medical student); provider gender; amount of time the patient spent in the examination room with the provider (provider time); and total time the patient spent in the clinic from check-in to checkout (clinic time). When compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using some form of interpreter had longer mean provider times (32.4 minutes [min] vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (93.6 min vs 82.4 min, P = .002). Compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using a telephone interpreter had significantly longer mean provider times (36.3 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (99.9 min vs 82.4 min, P = .02). Similarly, patients using a patient-supplied interpreter had longer mean provider times (34.4 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and mean clinic times (92.8 min vs 82.4 min, P = .027). In contrast, patients using a hospital interpreter did not have significantly different mean provider times (26.8 min vs 28.0 min, P = .51) or mean clinic times (91.0 min vs 82.4 min, P = .16) than patients not requiring an interpreter. CONCLUSION: In our setting, telephone and patient-supplied interpreters were associated with longer visit times, but full-time hospital interpreters were not.",
author = "Fagan, {Mark J.} and Diaz, {Joseph A.} and Reinert, {Steven E.} and Sciamanna, {Christopher N.} and Fagan, {Dylan M.}",
year = "2003",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20701.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "634--638",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "8",

}

Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length. / Fagan, Mark J.; Diaz, Joseph A.; Reinert, Steven E.; Sciamanna, Christopher N.; Fagan, Dylan M.

In: Journal of general internal medicine, Vol. 18, No. 8, 01.08.2003, p. 634-638.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length

AU - Fagan, Mark J.

AU - Diaz, Joseph A.

AU - Reinert, Steven E.

AU - Sciamanna, Christopher N.

AU - Fagan, Dylan M.

PY - 2003/8/1

Y1 - 2003/8/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interpretation method on outpatient visit length. DESIGN: Time-motion study. SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient teaching clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting for scheduled outpatient visits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over a 6-week study period, a research assistant recorded the following information for consecutive patient visits: patient age, gender and insurance type; type of interpreter used (none, hospital interpreter, telephone interpreter or patient-supplied interpreter); schedtried visit length; provider type (nurse practitioner; attending physician; resident in postgraduate year 1, 2 or 3, or medical student); provider gender; amount of time the patient spent in the examination room with the provider (provider time); and total time the patient spent in the clinic from check-in to checkout (clinic time). When compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using some form of interpreter had longer mean provider times (32.4 minutes [min] vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (93.6 min vs 82.4 min, P = .002). Compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using a telephone interpreter had significantly longer mean provider times (36.3 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (99.9 min vs 82.4 min, P = .02). Similarly, patients using a patient-supplied interpreter had longer mean provider times (34.4 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and mean clinic times (92.8 min vs 82.4 min, P = .027). In contrast, patients using a hospital interpreter did not have significantly different mean provider times (26.8 min vs 28.0 min, P = .51) or mean clinic times (91.0 min vs 82.4 min, P = .16) than patients not requiring an interpreter. CONCLUSION: In our setting, telephone and patient-supplied interpreters were associated with longer visit times, but full-time hospital interpreters were not.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interpretation method on outpatient visit length. DESIGN: Time-motion study. SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient teaching clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting for scheduled outpatient visits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over a 6-week study period, a research assistant recorded the following information for consecutive patient visits: patient age, gender and insurance type; type of interpreter used (none, hospital interpreter, telephone interpreter or patient-supplied interpreter); schedtried visit length; provider type (nurse practitioner; attending physician; resident in postgraduate year 1, 2 or 3, or medical student); provider gender; amount of time the patient spent in the examination room with the provider (provider time); and total time the patient spent in the clinic from check-in to checkout (clinic time). When compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using some form of interpreter had longer mean provider times (32.4 minutes [min] vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (93.6 min vs 82.4 min, P = .002). Compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using a telephone interpreter had significantly longer mean provider times (36.3 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (99.9 min vs 82.4 min, P = .02). Similarly, patients using a patient-supplied interpreter had longer mean provider times (34.4 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and mean clinic times (92.8 min vs 82.4 min, P = .027). In contrast, patients using a hospital interpreter did not have significantly different mean provider times (26.8 min vs 28.0 min, P = .51) or mean clinic times (91.0 min vs 82.4 min, P = .16) than patients not requiring an interpreter. CONCLUSION: In our setting, telephone and patient-supplied interpreters were associated with longer visit times, but full-time hospital interpreters were not.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0041629635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0041629635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20701.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20701.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 12911645

AN - SCOPUS:0041629635

VL - 18

SP - 634

EP - 638

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 8

ER -