Rosa K Hand1, Jeffrey M Albert2, Ashwini R Sehgal3. 1. Department of Nutrition and PhD Program Clinical Translational Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: rosa.hand@case.edu. 2. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Center for Reducing Health Disparities, MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify how dialysis dietitians spend their time and whether the activities that were most frequent varied based on the ratio of patient to full-time equivalent (FTE) dietitian. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional, observational, time-and-motion study carried out using the Work Activity Measurement by Activity Timing software/method for time recording. This study was carried out in 14 dialysis centers in and around Cleveland, Ohio. Fourteen registered dietitian nutritionists participated in this study. The mean time/experience of these nutritionists in dietetics was 26.6 ± 8.5 years. Percent of time in direct care (e.g., patient interaction) versus indirect care (e.g., documentation and plans of care, professional communication) versus other responsibilities (e.g., administrative work, education of self or others). RESULTS: The mean number of tasks recorded per 3-hour observation session was 38.3 ± 14.0, including 18.5 ± 7.7 indirect care tasks, 7.7 ± 6.2 direct care tasks, and 9.7 ± 5.4 other tasks. The mean number of unique patients seen per observation session was 6.9 ± 5.4; the mean direct care time per patient encounter was 6.95 ± 4.05 minutes. Indirect care took the highest proportion of observed time, 56.0 ± 22.2%, followed by direct care, 24.9 ± 18.8%. Increasing the ratio of patient to FTE had a moderate negative correlation with the percent of time spent in direct patient care (r = -0.35, P = .21), but there was no relationship between the ratio of patient to FTE and direct care time per patient (r = 0.02, P = .94). CONCLUSION: About 25% of dietitians' time was available for direct patient care. This is much less than that reported in previous studies and may not be sufficient to improve the nutritional status. Limitations of our study include a small sample size from a single region. Further work is needed to understand the balance of responsibilities among renal dietitians and their impact on patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify how dialysis dietitians spend their time and whether the activities that were most frequent varied based on the ratio of patient to full-time equivalent (FTE) dietitian. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional, observational, time-and-motion study carried out using the Work Activity Measurement by Activity Timing software/method for time recording. This study was carried out in 14 dialysis centers in and around Cleveland, Ohio. Fourteen registered dietitian nutritionists participated in this study. The mean time/experience of these nutritionists in dietetics was 26.6 ± 8.5 years. Percent of time in direct care (e.g., patient interaction) versus indirect care (e.g., documentation and plans of care, professional communication) versus other responsibilities (e.g., administrative work, education of self or others). RESULTS: The mean number of tasks recorded per 3-hour observation session was 38.3 ± 14.0, including 18.5 ± 7.7 indirect care tasks, 7.7 ± 6.2 direct care tasks, and 9.7 ± 5.4 other tasks. The mean number of unique patients seen per observation session was 6.9 ± 5.4; the mean direct care time per patient encounter was 6.95 ± 4.05 minutes. Indirect care took the highest proportion of observed time, 56.0 ± 22.2%, followed by direct care, 24.9 ± 18.8%. Increasing the ratio of patient to FTE had a moderate negative correlation with the percent of time spent in direct patient care (r = -0.35, P = .21), but there was no relationship between the ratio of patient to FTE and direct care time per patient (r = 0.02, P = .94). CONCLUSION: About 25% of dietitians' time was available for direct patient care. This is much less than that reported in previous studies and may not be sufficient to improve the nutritional status. Limitations of our study include a small sample size from a single region. Further work is needed to understand the balance of responsibilities among renal dietitians and their impact on patient outcomes.
Authors: Stewart Babbott; Linda Baier Manwell; Roger Brown; Enid Montague; Eric Williams; Mark Schwartz; Erik Hess; Mark Linzer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pamela S Kent; Maureen P McCarthy; Jerrilynn D Burrowes; Linda McCann; Jessie Pavlinac; Catherine M Goeddeke-Merickel; Karen Wiesen; Sarah Kruger; Laura Byham-Gray; Rory C Pace; Valarie Hannahs; Debbie Benner Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Laura C Plantinga; Nancy E Fink; John H Sadler; Andrew S Levey; Nathan W Levin; Haya R Rubin; Josef Coresh; Michael J Klag; Neil R Powe Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Jason D Runyan; Timothy A Steenbergh; Charles Bainbridge; Douglas A Daugherty; Lorne Oke; Brian N Fry Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 3.240