Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Much Time Do Patients Spend on Outpatient Visits?

The American Time Use Survey

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: In Crossing the Quality Chasm, the Institute of Medicine recommended that patient-centered care should not waste patients’ time and should recognize the involvement of family and friends. Studies have documented the time spent by physicians on outpatient visits, but not that spent by patients and their companions. The patient’s perspective provides an important yet overlooked indicator of healthcare effectiveness

Objective: To document how much time American patients spend on outpatient visits, for what purposes (travel, waiting, receiving services), and the time required of family members and friends

Methods: We used data from the first 4 years (2003–6) of the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), conducted by the US Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which asks respondents about their activities over a 24-hour period. ATUS is a nationally representative population-based survey that samples days continuously throughout the year. In 2003–6, 60 674 respondents aged ≥15 years were randomly selected from households that completed the Current Population urvey; 1621 reported seeking medical care for themselves on their survey day. We documented the percentage of the population that reported outpatient visits, the percentage who were accompanied to those visits and by whom, and the mean time spent by patients and their companions, by type of activity, and by age and sex

Results: After weighting the data to represent the US population, we found that 3.4% of people aged ≥15 years reported traveling, waiting, or receiving services in connection with an outpatient visit on their survey day. The mean time for those who reported the activity was 35 minutes for travel (95% CI 33, 37), 42 minutes of waiting (95% CI 37, 47), and 74 minutes receiving services (95% CI 70, 79). Overall, 39.5% were accompanied, usually by family members. Companions spent a mean of 124 minutes per encounter (95% CI 112, 135). Nearly half of those aged ≥65 years were accompanied, almost always by adults only, suggesting that they may have needed help with transportation, negotiating the healthcare system, or performing cognitive and emotional tasks involved in receiving care

Conclusion: Outpatient visits are time intensive for American patients and their families: the equivalent of 207 million 40-hour work-weeks each year. Patients and their families spend substantially more time on outpatient visits than the time with the physician reported by the annual National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Further research is needed on the components of outpatient visits that do not directly involve physicians. Efforts to improve care should address waiting times and recognize the involvement of family members. The ATUS could provide periodic benchmarks of patient time use as a supplement to other indicators of patient-centered care in the annual National Healthcare Quality Report

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  2. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. American Time Use Survey [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm [Accessed 2008 Sep 9]

  3. Juster FT, Stafford FP. The allocation of time: empirical findings, behavioral models, and problems of measurement. J Econ Lit 1991; 29(2): 471–522

    Google Scholar 

  4. Russell LB, Ibuka Y, Abraham KG. Health-related activities in the American Time Use Survey. Med Care 2007; 45: 680–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gilchrist VJ, Stange KC, Flocke SA, et al. A comparison of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) measurement approach with direct observation of outpatient visits. Med Care 2004; 42: 276–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lo A, Ryder K, Shorr RI. Relationship between patient age and duration of physician visit in ambulatory setting: does one size fit all? J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 1162–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gottschalk A, Flocke SA. Time spent in face-to-face patient care and work outside the examination room. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3: 488–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cherry DK, Woodwell DA, Rechsteiner EA. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2005 summary [Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics; report no. 387]. Rockville (MD): National Centre for Health Statistics, 2007 Jun 29

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tai-Seale M, McGuire TG, Zhang W. Time allocation in primary care office visits. Health Services Res 2007; 42: 1871–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. American Time Use Survey User’s Guide: Understanding ATUS 2003 to 2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics and US Census Bureau, 2007 June [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/tus/atususersguide.pdf [Accessed 2008 Apr 15]

  11. Horrigan M, Herz D. Planning, designing, and executing the BLS American Time-Use Survey. Mon Labor Rev 2004; 127(10): 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  12. Abraham K, Maitland A, Bianchi S. Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey: who is missing from the data and how much does it matter? Public Opin Q 2006; 70 (5 Special Issue): 676–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shelley KJ. Developing the American Time Use Survey activity classification system. Mon Labor Rev 2005; 128: 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  14. US Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics. American Time Use Survey: activity coding lexicons. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/tus/lexicons.htm [Accessed 2008 Mar 26]

  15. US Department of Health & Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/data/mepsix.htm [Accessed 2008 Sep 9]

  16. Chapter 14: estimation of variance. In: Design and methodology: current population survey [technical paper 66]. Washington, DC: US Bureau of Labor Statistics; US Census Bureau, 2006 Oct [online]. Available from URL: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf [Accessed 2007 Oct 5]

  17. Fay RE. Theory and application of replicate weighting for variance calculations. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, 1989: 212-17 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/ [Accessed 2008 Sep 9]

  18. O’Neill GE, Sincavage JR. Response analysis survey: a qualitative look at response and nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/st040140.pdf [Accessed 2007 Oct 5]

    Google Scholar 

  19. Get better care from your doctor: what 39 090 patients and 335 doctors have to say about how to make the most of your next appointment. Consum Rep 2007 Feb; 72 (2): 32-36

  20. Fagan MJ, Diaz JA, Reinert SE, et al. Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 634–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ, Jaen CR, et al. Illuminating the ‘black box’: a description of 4454 patient visits to 138 family physicians. J Fam Practice 1998; 46: 377–89

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Klag MJ, MacKenzie EJ, Carswell CI, et al. The role of The Patient in promoting patient-centered outcomes research. Patient 2008; 1(1): 1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Iezzoni LI, O’Day BL, Killeen M, et al. Communicating about health care: observations from persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 356–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bergeson SC, Dean JD. A systems approach to patient-centered care. JAMA 2006; 296: 2848–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Durso SC. Using clinical guidelines designed for older adults with diabetes mellitus and complex health status. JAMA 2006; 295: 1935–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Peterson ED. Patient-centered cardiac care for the elderly: TIME for reflection. JAMA 2003; 289: 1157–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. 2006 National Healthcare Quality Report [publication 07-0013]. Rockville (MD): AHRQ, 2006 Dec

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grimes D, Schulz K. Bias and causal association in observational research. Lancet 2002; 359: 248–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. US National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm [Accessed 2008 Sep 27]

  30. Wolff JL, Roter DL. Hidden in plain sight: medical visit companions as a resource for vulnerable older adults. Arch Int Med 2008; 168(13): 1409–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yabroff KR, Warren JL, Knopf K, et al. Estimating patient time costs associated with colorectal cancer care. Med Care 2005; 43: 640–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yabroff KR, Davis WW, Lamont EB, et al. Patient time costs associated with cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 14–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cantor SB, Levy LB, Cardenas-Turanzas M, et al. Collecting direct non-health care and time cost data: application to screening and diagnosis of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 265–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Abraham K, Mackie C, editors. Beyond the market. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS, et al. Value of patient time invested in the colonoscopy screening process: time requirements for colonoscopy study. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 56–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lafata JE, Martin SA, Kaatz S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of different management strategies for patients on chronic warfarin therapy. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 31–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An abstract based on this paper has been accepted for oral presentation at the Society for Medical Decision Making meetings; 2008 Oct 21; Philadelphia (PA), USA.

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

No one other than the authors made substantial contributions to the work.

Dr Ibuka took up a post-doctoral position at the Yale School of Public Health in July.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research and Department of Economics, New Brunswick, 30 College Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Louise B. Russell & Yoko Ibuka

  2. Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research and Department of Sociology, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

    Deborah Carr

Authors
  1. Louise B. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoko Ibuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deborah Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise B. Russell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Russell, L.B., Ibuka, Y. & Carr, D. How Much Time Do Patients Spend on Outpatient Visits?. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 1, 211–222 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801030-00008

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801030-00008

Keywords

Search

Navigation