Cited by 142Healthcare Systems and TechnologyHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management

Even patients with changing moles face long dermatology appointment wait-times: A study of simulated patient calls to dermatologists

Tsang, Matthew W., Resneck, Jack S.·2006·Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Abstract

Background Previous studies have shown long wait-times for general dermatology patients seeking routine appointments. No evidence has been gathered on wait-times for patients with urgent problems or on the impact of physician extenders on access to dermatologic care.Objective and methods To evaluate access for patients with an urgent problem, we performed scripted patient telephone calls to 851 dermatologists to assess wait-times for both patients with Medicare and those paying out-of-pocket complaining of a changing mole.Results Mean wait-times were similarly long for patients paying out-of-pocket (38.2 days) and those on Medicare (38.9 days; P = .85). Acceptance rates and wait-times varied greatly by geographic area (range of mean wait-times, 19.7-73.4 days). Many dermatologists (23.3%) employed a physician extender, and the wait-times for these extenders (27.9 days) were significantly shorter than those for the physicians supervising them (45.8 days; P < .001).Limitations The metropolitan areas sampled represented about one tenth of practicing dermatologists in the United States, and no remote or highly rural communities were included.Conclusions Patients with a changing pigmented lesion, a possible indicator of malignancy, face wait-times just as long as those previously published for patients with routine complaints. Medicare patients did not experience any greater barriers to access. Although the use of physician extenders remains controversial, these practitioners were able to schedule patients more quickly than their supervising physicians.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.04.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Various authors have reported difficulties in obtaining an appointment with a dermatologist.

    “However, various authors have reported difficulties in obtaining an appointment with a dermatologist [12,14-17].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 13 · Cited by 142

Authors
Tsang, M. W., & Resneck, J. S.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Resneck, Jack S.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-07
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
54-58
ISSN
0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102435971
Cited by
142
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
12.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Keywords
access to dermatologic care, pigmented skin lesions, urgent care, physician extenders, Medicare beneficiaries
MeSH terms
Appointments and Schedules, Dermatology, Female, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Skin Diseases, Skin Neoplasms, Time Factors, Waiting Lists, Patient Simulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review