Author(s)
Eugene A. Kim, MM
Natasha Mayer, BS
Edra Ha, MPH
Rida Ashraf
Garret Choby, MD
Angela Mazul, PhD, MPH
Affiliation(s)
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Abstract:
Educational Objective: At the conclusion of this presentation, the participants should be able to assess wait times at otolaryngology clinics in our state.
Objectives: To identify barriers to timely diagnosis for common otolaryngologic conditions.
Study Design: This was a cross-sectional study.
Methods: A total of 235 unique otolaryngology clinics were identified through the Medifind database and contacted four times through a standardized script. Callers simulated four conditions: sudden unilateral hearing loss (UHL), new neck mass (NM), chronic sinusitis (CS), or subacute hoarseness (SH). Clinics were categorized based on rural/urban commuting area (RUCA) codes and practice type, including tertiary care centers, community hospitals, and private practices.
Results: Of 235 unique otolaryngology clinics in our state, 148 (63.0%) were successfully contacted. Of these clinics, 11 (7.4%) were tertiary care centers, 62 (41.9%) community hospitals, and 75 (50.7%) private practice based. Clinics answered an average of 2.30 of 4 (57.5%) calls and reported a median wait time of 23.5 [14.0–39.0] days. The median wait times per presenting complaints were 21.5 [5.0-42.0] days for UHL, 21.0 [10.0-35.0] days for NM, 28.0 [10.0-42.0] days for CS, and 28.0 [14.0-41.0] days for SH; with no significant difference between complaints. Similarly, wait times between rural (32.5 [16.0-50.0] days) and urban (23.0 [12.0-38.0] days) settings showed no significant difference. Of note, wait times were significantly shorter in the private practice setting (18.5 [10.0-26.0] days) compared to tertiary care centers (43.0 [20.0-62.0] days) and community based hospitals (30.0 [18.0-54.0] days) (p=0.001).
Conclusions: Patients experience lengthy wait times for otolaryngology appointments, even for urgent conditions. Private practices have shorter wait times compared to hospitals, indicating greater operational flexibility and lower patient volume.