RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To study end-user attitudes and preferences with respect to radiology scheduling systems and to assess implications for retention and extension of the referral base. A study of the institution's historical data indicated reduced satisfaction with the process of patient scheduling in recent years. METHODS: Sixty physicians who referred patients to a single, large academic radiology department received the survey. The survey was designed to identify (A) the preferred vehicle for patient scheduling (on-line versus telephone scheduling) and (B) whether ease of scheduling was a factor in physicians referring patients to other providers. Referring physicians were asked to forward the survey to any appropriate office staff member in case the latter scheduled appointments for patients. Users were asked to provide comments and suggestions for improvement. The statistical method used was the analysis of proportions. RESULTS: Thirty-three responses were received, corresponding to a return rate of 55%. Twenty-six of the 33 respondents (78.8%, P < .01) stated they were willing to try an online scheduling system; 16 of which tried the system. Twelve of the 16 (75%, P < .05) preferred the on-line application to the telephone system, stating logistical simplification as the primary reason for preference. Three (18.75%) did not consider online scheduling to be more convenient than traditional telephone scheduling. One respondent did not indicate any preference. Eleven of 33 users (33.33%, P < .001) stated that they would change radiology service providers if expectations of scheduling ease are not met. CONCLUSION: On-line scheduling applications are becoming the preferred scheduling vehicle. Augmenting their capabilities and availability can simplify the scheduling process, improve referring physician satisfaction, and provide a competitive advantage. Referrers are willing to change providers if scheduling expectations are not met.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To study end-user attitudes and preferences with respect to radiology scheduling systems and to assess implications for retention and extension of the referral base. A study of the institution's historical data indicated reduced satisfaction with the process of patient scheduling in recent years. METHODS: Sixty physicians who referred patients to a single, large academic radiology department received the survey. The survey was designed to identify (A) the preferred vehicle for patient scheduling (on-line versus telephone scheduling) and (B) whether ease of scheduling was a factor in physicians referring patients to other providers. Referring physicians were asked to forward the survey to any appropriate office staff member in case the latter scheduled appointments for patients. Users were asked to provide comments and suggestions for improvement. The statistical method used was the analysis of proportions. RESULTS: Thirty-three responses were received, corresponding to a return rate of 55%. Twenty-six of the 33 respondents (78.8%, P < .01) stated they were willing to try an online scheduling system; 16 of which tried the system. Twelve of the 16 (75%, P < .05) preferred the on-line application to the telephone system, stating logistical simplification as the primary reason for preference. Three (18.75%) did not consider online scheduling to be more convenient than traditional telephone scheduling. One respondent did not indicate any preference. Eleven of 33 users (33.33%, P < .001) stated that they would change radiology service providers if expectations of scheduling ease are not met. CONCLUSION: On-line scheduling applications are becoming the preferred scheduling vehicle. Augmenting their capabilities and availability can simplify the scheduling process, improve referring physician satisfaction, and provide a competitive advantage. Referrers are willing to change providers if scheduling expectations are not met.
Authors: Michael Weiner; Georges El Hoyek; Lynnette Wang; Paul R Dexter; Ann D Zerr; Anthony J Perkins; Felgrace James; Rattan Juneja Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 5.128