Patients outside the US wait even longer to see healthcare specialists with some appointments scheduled a year out in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia
Data recently released by healthcare consulting firm ECG Management Consultants (ECG) reveals that patients in the United States wait an average of 38 days for healthcare appointments. That figure is a significant stretch from the desired industry standard of 14-day or less wait times, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Clinical laboratories serve the needs of physicians who see patients and refer testing needed by patients to labs. Thus, average wait times should be of interest to lab professionals who strive to meet reporting turnaround times for lab test results, particularly given the unique way that ECG conducted its survey of patient wait times.
In “The Waiting Game: New-Patient Appointment Access for US Physicians,” ECG wrote, “Adopting a ‘secret shopper’ approach, we put ourselves in the shoes of the average patient trying to book an appointment. We contacted nearly 4,000 physician practices in 23 major cities across the US, posing as a new, commercially insured patient seeking care for general, nonemergent conditions that typically don’t require a physician referral.”
ECG’s study provides “a realistic view of where and in what specialties patients face the most significant challenges to accessing routine care,” the authors wrote in their published report. The report also includes patients’ appointment-keeping behavior based on length of wait times.
“Consumer expectations have evolved significantly in all industries. From buying a plane ticket to making a restaurant reservation, the consumer experience has been highly optimized and customers in turn have become accustomed to information and services being available at their fingertips. They bring the same expectations about speed and convenience to healthcare,” the researchers explained.
ECG pointed out that when patients are required to wait 14 days or more to see their physicians, no shows and cancellations increase dramatically.
“Numerous studies have shown that patients are significantly less likely to show up for appointments that are scheduled further out,” the study authors noted.
“One of the takeaways was how difficult the patient experience is. Not only did our secret shoppers have to go out and find physicians, they had to sit on the phone sometimes on very long holds and go through multiple barriers and jump through hoops,” Jennifer Moody (above), partner with ECG Management Consultants and one of the authors of the study, told Becker’s Hospital Review. “Even in that case, they weren’t successful in scheduling appointments with all the practices they called. I think of the average consumer who might be having a similar experience,” she added. Lengthy wait times are not believed to be an issue when patients need clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Getting Authentic Results
To gather the study data, ECG distributed its secret shoppers throughout 23 major US cities, reaching almost 4,000 physician practices (between 145-168 per city) to schedule appointments for non-emergency conditions not needing a physical referral.
The researchers gathered wait times for TNAAs (third next available appointments), a common metric. They chose TNAAs because first and second appointments often produce unclear results due to extenuating circumstances or late cancellations, Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
The researchers recorded TNAAs for the following specialties:
Cardiology (39 days),
Dermatology (40 days),
Family medicine (29 days),
Gastroenterology (48 days),
General surgery (22 days),
Neurology (63 days),
Obstetrics/gynecology (37 days),
Ophthalmology (37 days),
Orthopedic surgery (20 days),
Pediatrics (24 days), and,
Rheumatology (68 days).
They found the average wait time to be 38 days. And “of the 253 metropolitan market and specialty combinations included in this research, only 6% had an average wait time of 14 days or less,” Becker’s reported.
The researchers omitted the physician practices that were unable to either take or return calls, take messages, or provide a hold time under five minutes to give the secret shopper an answer, Becker’s added.
Jennifer Moody, Partner, ECG Management Consultants, one of the authors of the study, “was particularly surprised by the portion of callers who never even made it to the stage of learning about wait times. Out of 3,712 physician practices, callers were able to secure responses from only 3,079, meaning nearly one in five physician practices could not provide appointment availability information,” Becker’s reported.
The lowest average wait time in all specialties was 27 days in Houston, and the longest was 70 days in Boston. “A key takeaway from the report is that physician concentration does not guarantee timely access, as a major healthcare hub like Boston helps illustrate,” Becker’s noted, adding that physicians in such areas may “devote time to teaching or research over appointments.”
The graphic above, taken from ECG’s published report, shows the average TNAA times recorded by their secret shoppers at medical specialty practices in major cities across the US. (Graphic copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Other Country’s Wait Times
Healthcare systems outside the US struggle with patient wait times as well. Forbes reported that patients of Canada’s public health system “faced a median wait of 27.7 weeks for medically necessary treatment from a specialist after being referred by a general practitioner. That’s over six months—the longest ever recorded.”
Patients in Nova Scotia wait even longer. There they “face a median wait of 56.7 weeks—more than a year—for specialist treatment following referral by a general practitioner. Those on Prince Edward Island are also in the year-long waiting club—a median of just over 55 weeks,” Forbes noted.
And in the UK, a recent survey found that “more than 150,000 patients had to wait a day in A&E [accident and emergency] before getting a hospital bed last year, according to new data,” with the majority of those patients over the age of 65, according to The Guardian.
ECG suggestions that may reduce wait times include:
Adopt automation and self-service tools in an “easily navigable platform” that enables patients to schedule appointments 24/7.
Ensure healthcare providers are “utilized appropriately and at the top of their license.”
Address inequities in access to healthcare regardless of patients’ location or socioeconomic status.
There is more in the ECG report that hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories—can use to reduce patient wait times to see care providers. As the authors wrote, “For patients, the first step of the care journey shouldn’t be the hardest.”
Though smartphone apps are technically not clinical laboratory tools, anatomic pathologists and medical laboratory scientists (MLSs) may be interested to learn how health information technology (HIT), machine learning, and smartphone apps are being used to assess different aspects of individuals’ health, independent of trained healthcare professionals.
The issue that the Cedars Sinai researchers were investigating is the accuracy of patient self-reporting. Because poop can be more complicated than meets the eye, when asked to describe their bowel movements patients often find it difficult to be specific. Thus, use of a smartphone app that enables patients to accurately assess their stools in cases where watching the function of their digestive tract is relevant to their diagnoses and treatment would be a boon to precision medicine treatments of gastroenterology diseases.
“This app takes out the guesswork by using AI—not patient input—to process the images (of bowel movements) taken by the smartphone,” said gastroenterologist Mark Pimentel, MD (above), Executive Director of Cedars-Sinai’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) program and principal investigator of the study, in a news release. “The mobile app produced more accurate and complete descriptions of constipation, diarrhea, and normal stools than a patient could, and was comparable to specimen evaluations by well-trained gastroenterologists in the study.” (Photo copyright: Cedars-Sinai.)
Pros and Cons of Bristol Stool Scale
In their paper, the scientists discussed the Bristol Stool Scale (BSS), a traditional diagnostic tool for identifying stool forms into seven categories. The seven types of stool are:
Type 1: Separate hard lumps, like nuts (difficult to pass).
Type 2: Sausage-shaped, but lumpy.
Type 3: Like a sausage, but with cracks on its surface.
Type 4: Like a sausage or snake, smooth and soft (average stool).
Type 5: Soft blobs with clear cut edges.
Type 6: Fluffy pieces with ragged edges, a mushy stool (diarrhea).
Type 7: Watery, no solid pieces, entirely liquid (diarrhea).
But even with the BSS, things can get murky for patients. Inaccurate self-reporting of stool forms by people with IBS and diarrhea can make proper diagnoses difficult.
“The problem is that whenever you have a patient reporting an outcome measure, it becomes subjective rather than objective. This can impact the placebo effect,” gastroenterologist Mark Pimentel, MD, Executive Director of Cedars-Sinai’s Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) program and principal investigator of the study, told Healio.
Thus, according to the researchers, AI algorithms can help with diagnosis by systematically doing the assessments for the patients, News Medical reported.
30,000 Stool Images Train New App
To conduct their study, the Cedars-Sinai researchers tested an AI smartphone app developed by Dieta Health. According to Health IT Analytics, employing AI trained on 30,000 annotated stool images, the app characterizes digital images of bowel movements using five parameters:
BSS,
Consistency,
Edge fuzziness,
Fragmentation, and
Volume.
“The app used AI to train the software to detect the consistency of the stool in the toilet based on the five parameters of stool form, We then compared that with doctors who know what they are looking at,” Pimentel told Healio.
AI Assessments Comparable to Doctors, Better than Patients
According to Health IT Analytics, the researchers found that:
AI assessed the stool comparable to gastroenterologists’ assessments on BSS, consistency, fragmentation, and edge fuzziness scores.
AI and gastroenterologists had moderate-to-good agreement on volume.
AI outperformed study participant self-reports based on the BSS with 95% accuracy, compared to patients’ 89% accuracy.
Additionally, the AI outperformed humans in specificity and sensitivity as well:
Specificity (ability to correctly report a negative result) was 27% higher.
Sensitivity (ability to correctly report a positive result) was 23% higher.
“A novel smartphone application can determine BSS and other visual stool characteristics with high accuracy compared with the two expert gastroenterologists. Moreover, trained AI was superior to subject self-reporting of BSS. AI assessments could provide more objective outcome measures for stool characterization in gastroenterology,” the Cedars-Sinai researchers wrote in their paper.
“In addition to improving a physician’s ability to assess their patients’ digestive health, this app could be advantageous for clinical trials by reducing the variability of stool outcome measures,” said gastroenterologist Ali Rezaie, MD, study co-author and Medical Director of Cedars-Sinai’s GI Motility Program in the news release.
The researchers plan to seek FDA review of the mobile app.
Opportunity for Clinical Laboratories
Anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders may want to reach out to referring gastroenterologists to find out how they can help to better serve gastro patients. As the Cedars-Sinai study suggests, AI smartphone apps can perform BSS assessments as good as or better than humans and may be useful tools in the pursuit of precision medicine treatments for patient suffering from painful gastrointestinal disorders.
This low-cost solution opens new doors for low-resource regions and, in many cases, allows operators to rule out malignancy without the need for a pathologist to review biopsies
Rapid development of endoscopic technologies is bringing medical professionals closer to point-of-care pathology than ever before. The goal is to allow physicians to identify diseased or cancerous tissue in situ and reduce or eliminate the need to biopsy tissue for examination by surgical pathologists.
Researchers at Rice University in Houston are developing a high-resolution microendoscope (HRME) that offers the ability to view tissue at a subcellular level. This fiber optic probe would reduce the need to collect the biopsy that is typically sent to anatomic pathologists for analysis.
Measuring 1-mm in diameter, the probe works using the existing accessory channel of the endoscope. Touching it to the surface of the tissue provides real-timein vivo images to the technician at up to 12 frames per second on an accompanying tablet display. Images are enhanced using visual overlays and an algorithm that highlights the nuclei of cells within the field of view. The HRME system is battery powered and fits in a briefcase for easy transport. (more…)
Authors of the published study wrote that use of HD optical technology during colonoscopies gives patients a faster answer and may eliminate the need to refer biopsies to pathologists
High definition optical technology is reaching the point where gastroenterologists are able to identify pre-cancerous polyps with 96% accuracy during colonoscopies, according to a recent study conducted at the Mayo Clinic. Pathologists will want to pay close attention to the published findings of this study. That’s because GI biopsies represent a significant proportion of specimens referred to anatomic pathologists.
Nestlé says its Prometheus Laboratory acquisition will help it develop products for patients with metabolic conditions and to promote brain health
When it comes to the brave new world of genetics in pathology and clinical laboratory testing, such terms as pharmacogenomics, companion diagnostics, and personalized medicine have been coined to describe the intersection of genetic testing and molecular diagnostics with emerging medical practice. Now the world’s largest food company is putting forth a vision of how genetic testing can inform decisions about the patient’s nutrition.
It was last May when the health-science unit of Nestlé SA, (VTX:NESN) the giant foods company in Vevey, Switzerland, announced its purchase of Prometheus Laboratories Inc., of San Diego, California. The price was $567 million.
