Even patients with changing moles face long dermatology appointment wait-times: A study of simulated patient calls to dermatologists
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [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