Otolaryngology workforce analysis

Hughes, C.; McMenamin, Paul G.; Mehta, Vikas; Pillsbury, Harold C.; Kennedy, David W.

doi:10.1002/lary.26238

Cited by 56 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This leads to longer waiting times for clinic appointments and a decrease in patient satisfaction. With a looming shortage of otolaryngologists in the future, appointment nonadherence and the factors associated with no‐shows is an important area of research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with patient no‐show rates in an academic otolaryngology practice

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with patient no‐show rates in an academic otolaryngology practice

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sample size recommended for the survey is between 30 and 75 physicians . In the United States, there are currently >10,000 practicing otolaryngologists . Even with the 140 responses to the most recent RUC survey for ESS codes, this only represents 1.5% of all practicing otolaryngologists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of RUC methodology for determining the RVU valuation of sinus surgery

Smith

Oakley

Alt

et al. 2019

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The Relative Value Scale Update Commi ee, commonly known as the RUC, is responsible for defining the value of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The RUC process uses survey responses reporting operative times to determine procedure reimbursement, but it is limited by low response rates, small sample sizes, and unclear generalizability of the results. By comparing actual reported intraoperative times to the times determined by the RUC process, in this study we sought to assess the performance of RUC methodology in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Methods:The ESS CPT codes that were reassessed in 2016 using the RUC method were examined in this study. Intraoperative time data for these codes were retrospectively collected from 14 medical facilities, using time stamps in the electronic health record. These actual intraoperative times were compared with the 2016 RUC survey results.Results: There were 143 RUC physician survey responses and 446 actual procedure times included in the final analysis. There was significant variability within the RUC survey responses (ie, unilateral anterior ethmoidectomy times varied from 5 to 90 minutes). There was also a significant difference between the RUC survey results and actual intraoperative times (p < 0.001). For example, frontal sinus surgeries showed a particularly poor correlation between actual and RUC times. Conclusion:The RUC process may not accurately estimate or value actual intraoperative times. Real-world intraoperative times are readily accessible and may be an alternative to survey-based methodology in the future. C 2019 ARS-AAOA, LLC.

show abstract

“…The article "Otolaryngology Workforce Analysis" by Hughes et al 1 is an effort to understand the current otolaryngology workforce through analysis of various national databases and to identify potential confounding factors in addressing future healthcare needs. Although this is a valuable aspiration, the authors rely on data that has not been scientifically validated and present various individuals' personal statements as support to validate conclusions.…”

Section: Letter To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%