Cited by 472Primary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareChronic Disease Management Strategies

Time allocation in primary care office visits

Open access
Tai‐Seale, Ming, McGuire, Thomas G., Zhang, Weimin·2007·Health Services Research

Abstract

Objectives. To use an innovative videotape analysis method to examine how clinic time was spent during elderly patients' visits to primary care physicians. Secondary objectives were to identify the factors that influence time allocations. Data Sources. A convenience sample of 392 videotapes of routine office visits conducted between 1998 and 2000 from multiple primary care practices in the United States, supplemented by patient and physician surveys. Research Design. Videotaped visits were examined for visit length and time devoted to specific topics—a novel approach to study time allocation. A survival analysis model analyzed the effects of patient, physician, and physician practice setting on how clinic time was spent. Principal Findings. Very limited amount of time was dedicated to specific topics in office visits. The median visit length was 15.7 minutes covering a median of six topics. About 5 minutes were spent on the longest topic whereas the remaining topics each received 1.1 minutes. While time spent by patient and physician on a topic responded to many factors, length of the visit overall varied little even when contents of visits varied widely. Macro factors associated with each site had more influence on visit and topic length than the nature of the problem patients presented. Conclusions. Many topics compete for visit time, resulting in small amount of time being spent on each topic. A highly regimented schedule might interfere with having sufficient time for patients with complex or multiple problems. Efforts to improve the quality of care need to recognize the time pressure on both patients and physicians, the effects of financial incentives, and the time costs of improving patient–physician interactions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00689.x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Time Allocation in Primary Care 1891 14756773, 2007, 5, · DOI
  2. Ickes, W., C. Marangoni, and S. Garcia. 1997. ''Studying Empathic Accuracy in a Clinically Relevant Context.'' In Empathic Accuracy, edited by W. Ickes, pp. 282- 310. New York: Guilford Press.
  3. Maynard, D. 2003. Bad News, Good News: Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tai‐Seale, M., McGuire, T. G., & Zhang, W.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
Corresponding author
Tai‐Seale, Ming
Venue
Health Services Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01-24
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
1871-1894
ISSN
  • 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6773
OpenAlex
W2106691710
Cited by
472
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 9
FWCI
29.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (AG15737, R44AG015737)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K01MH001935, MH01935)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
time allocation, elderly patients, visit duration, videotape analysis, physician time use, patient-physician interaction, time pressure, financial incentives, clinic scheduling
MeSH terms
Aged, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Office Visits, Physician-Patient Relations, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Quality of Health Care, United States, Videotape Recording, Time Management, Health Care Surveys

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