Comparability of Two Methods of Time and Motion Study Used in a Clinical Setting: Work Sampling and Continuous Observation

• Published in: Medical care 1977-11, Vol.15 (11), p.953-960
• Main Authors: Wirth, Patricia, Kahn, Lawrence, Perkoff, Gerald T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Coefficients; Deferred expenses; Group medical practices; Group Practice - standards; Humans; Medical research; Observational research; Paperwork; Patient care; Pediatrics; Physician-Patient Relations; Physicians; Quality of Health Care; Task Performance and Analysis; Telephones; Time and Motion Studies; Work
• ISSN: 0025-7079; 1537-1948
• DOI: 10.1097/00005650-197711000-00009

Two methods of time and motion study, continuous observation and work sampling, were used to measure physician behavior in a prepaid group practice. Results of the two methods were compared to determine whether differences occurred because of method. No significant differences appeared in time/unit of patient service for 82 per cent of physicians studied, nor did the presence of the continuous observer affect the number of units of patient service/half day of observation. Nonpatient activities showed a slightly larger number of differences although 74 per cent of comparisons of mean activity times still showed none. Suggested causes for noted discrepancies may be circumstantial dissimilarities in the two study periods or observer proximity. Nonetheless, overall the two methods show a high degree of similarity. Unless there is particular interest in the exact content of the physician-patient encounter, when continuous observation is required, work sampling is preferred because of time, cost, and possible observer influence on nonpatient activities.