The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2018
Survey of North American Multidisciplinary Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Team Clinic Administration.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pfeifauf Kristin D, Patel Kamlesh B, Snyder-Warwick Alison, Skolnick Gary B, Scheve Sibyl, Naidoo Sybill D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide an understanding of the ways cleft palate (CP) and craniofacial teams address billing, administration, communication of clinical recommendations, appointment scheduling, and diagnosis-specific protocols.
DESIGN: An online clinic administration survey was developed using data from an open-ended telephone questionnaire. The online survey was distributed by e-mail to the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) nurse coordinator electronic mailing list, used regularly by the ACPA and its members to communicate with teams. The response was 34.1% (42/123). Two incomplete records were excluded, as were any inconsistent responses of 3 teams submitting duplicate records.
RESULTS: Six (15.8%) of 38 teams do not charge for clinic visits. For all other teams, some or all providers bill individually for services (68.4%) or a single lump sum applies (10.5%). Patients of 34 (89.5%) of 38 teams occasionally or often neglect to schedule or attend follow-up appointments. Twenty-six (66.7%) of 39 team directors were plastic surgeons. Phone is a common method of contacting families for scheduling (60.0%) and appointment reminders (82.5%). Most teams' providers (90.0%) routinely communicate findings to each other during postclinical conference. Most teams saw patients with isolated cleft lip (43.6%), cleft lip and palate (64.1%), or isolated CP (59.0%) annually.
CONCLUSIONS: The breadth of strategies team clinic administration strategies warrants further exploration of the variations and their effects on patient-centered outcomes including the quality of life, satisfaction, cost, and resource utilization.
DESIGN: An online clinic administration survey was developed using data from an open-ended telephone questionnaire. The online survey was distributed by e-mail to the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) nurse coordinator electronic mailing list, used regularly by the ACPA and its members to communicate with teams. The response was 34.1% (42/123). Two incomplete records were excluded, as were any inconsistent responses of 3 teams submitting duplicate records.
RESULTS: Six (15.8%) of 38 teams do not charge for clinic visits. For all other teams, some or all providers bill individually for services (68.4%) or a single lump sum applies (10.5%). Patients of 34 (89.5%) of 38 teams occasionally or often neglect to schedule or attend follow-up appointments. Twenty-six (66.7%) of 39 team directors were plastic surgeons. Phone is a common method of contacting families for scheduling (60.0%) and appointment reminders (82.5%). Most teams' providers (90.0%) routinely communicate findings to each other during postclinical conference. Most teams saw patients with isolated cleft lip (43.6%), cleft lip and palate (64.1%), or isolated CP (59.0%) annually.
CONCLUSIONS: The breadth of strategies team clinic administration strategies warrants further exploration of the variations and their effects on patient-centered outcomes including the quality of life, satisfaction, cost, and resource utilization.