Measuring access: how accurate are patient-reported waiting times?

Rutland, E., Rowberry, C., Patel, R. and Cassell, J. A. (2008) Measuring access: how accurate are patient-reported waiting times? Sexually Transmitted Infections, 84. pp. 70-71. ISSN 1368-4973

[img]
Preview
PDF
Download (127kB) | Preview

Abstract

Measuring access: how accurate are patient-reported waiting times? E Rutland1, C Rowberry2, R Patel1 and J A Cassell3 1 Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK 2 University of Southampton School of Medicine, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK 3 Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton, Falmer BN1 9PH, UK Correspondence to: Dr E Rutland, Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK; emma_rutland@hotmail.com Introduction: A national audit of waiting times in England’s genitourinary medicine clinics measures patient access. Data are collected by patient questionnaires, which rely upon patients’ recollection of first contact with health services, often several days previously. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of patient-reported waiting times. Methods: Data on true waiting times were collected at the time of patient booking over a three-week period and compared with patient-reported data collected upon clinic attendance. Factors contributing to patient inaccuracy were explored. Results: Of 341 patients providing initial data, 255 attended; 207 as appointments and 48 ‘walk-in’. The accuracy of patient-reported waiting times overall was 52% (133/255). 85% of patients (216/255) correctly identified themselves as seen within or outside of 48 hours. 17% of patients (17/103) seen within 48 hours reported a longer waiting period, whereas 20% of patients (22/108) reporting waits under 48 hours were seen outside that period. Men were more likely to overestimate their waiting time (10.4% versus 3.1% p<0.02). The sensitivity of patient-completed questionnaires as a tool for assessing waiting times of less than 48 hours was 83.5%. The specificity and positive predictive value were 85.5% and 79.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The overall accuracy of patient reported waiting times was poor. Although nearly one in six patients misclassified themselves as being seen within or outside of 48 hours, given the under and overreporting rates observed, the overall impact on Health Protection Agency waiting time data is likely to be limited.

Item Type: Article
Schools and Departments: Brighton and Sussex Medical School > Primary Care and Public Health
Brighton and Sussex Medical School > Brighton and Sussex Medical School
Subjects: R Medicine > RZ Other systems of medicine
Depositing User: Caroline Brooks
Date Deposited: 23 Jun 2009
Last Modified: 06 Mar 2017 15:34
URI: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/2188
Google Scholar:1 Citations

View download statistics for this item

📧 Request an update