Pediatric Audiology Productivity: Results From a Multicenter Survey

• Published in: American journal of audiology 2019-09, Vol.28 (3), p.628-659
• Main Authors: Steuerwald, Wendy, Hunter, Lisa L, Karzon, Roanne
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Allied Health Personnel; Appointments and Schedules; Audiologists; Audiology; Auditory Tests; Child; Child health; Child Health Services; Efficiency; Health care; Hearing aids; Humans; Medicaid; Medicare; Methods; No-Show Patients; Occupational Therapy; Outcome Measures; Patients; Pediatrics; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Polls & surveys; Production management; Productivity; Productivity measurement; Quality standards; Research Design; Schedules; Scheduling; Setting (Literature); Speech Language Pathology; Speech therapy; Surveys and Questionnaires; Teaching Methods; Terminology; Terms and phrases; Time; United States; Workloads
• ISSN: 1059-0889; 1558-9137
• DOI: 10.1044/2019_AJA-18-0150

Purpose This report focuses on audiology productivity measures and targets, impacting variables, and implementation of productivity in pediatric settings and "life span facilities" with a significant population of pediatric patients. Research Design A questionnaire was sent to 116 facilities in geographically diverse locations. Results Of the 116 surveys sent, 25 surveys were returned (response rate of 21.5%) and 22 had sufficient data to be included for analyses. The majority of the sites measure productivity at the individual and/or department level. No predominant productivity measurement method was reported. Measurement methods included the following: appointment length ( = 6), weighting Current Procedural Terminology codes ( = 6), relative value units ( = 5), a combination of methods ( = 1), and other specific parameters ( = 1). Thirteen sites measured productivity as a percentage of scheduled worked time with a target of 69% (ranged from 40% to 85%). Many variables thought to impact productivity were evaluated: age of the patient, scheduling, use of a 2nd tester, no-show rate, hearing aid status, components of auditory brainstem response evaluation, documentation time, and monaural or binaural services. Schedule review and adjustment, efficiency, and communication with staff were methods reported to increase productivity. Conclusion Most surveyed facilities measure productivity at the individual and/or department levels. However, there is no standard method. Current productivity measures include time-based measures based on appointment length, time-based measures assigned to Current Procedural Terminology codes, relative value units, combined approaches, and individual site developed programs. Many variables impact productivity measurements. Further study and discussion are needed to develop an optimal method for productivity measurement in audiology.