{"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":"2024-10-01","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\":\"2024-10-01\",\"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\":\"2024/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"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":"2024/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
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.