ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices among providers and patients regarding hearing impairment and screening referrals in people with diabetes. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design among health care providers and patients at an academic medical center in Oklahoma was used to gather knowledge, attitudes, and practices data. RESULTS: Only 25.6% of providers selected hearing impairment as a complication of diabetes, whereas 96.7% selected retinopathy, kidney dysfunction, and foot infection. Reported barriers to referring patients for hearing impairment screenings were being unfamiliar with recommended screening frequency (57.3%) and existence of higher priorities (35.4%). When asked to select parts of the body affected by diabetes, 21.0% of patients surveyed selected ears, 88.0% selected feet, and 85.0% selected eyes and kidneys. Fewer patients reported being told hearing impairment is a complication of diabetes compared to retinopathy (8.1% vs 85.9%). Additionally, 24.2% of patients reported having a hearing impairment screening, and 96.0% reported having a dilated eye exam. CONCLUSIONS: Most providers and patients at an academic medical center are unaware of the relationship between diabetes and hearing impairment. Providers reported there are several barriers that need to be overcome to refer patients to audiologists.
Subject(s)
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Hearing Loss , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Male , Female , Hearing Loss/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Adult , Aged , Health Personnel/psychology , Diabetes Complications/epidemiology , Diabetes Complications/psychology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/psychology , Oklahoma/epidemiology , Referral and Consultation , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Emergency department (ED) wait times and ED length of stay (LOS) have a significant impact on patient morbidity and mortality and patient satisfaction. Consultation-to-decision time can contribute to increased wait times and LOS in the ED. Up to 40% of patients presenting to the ED require consultation from subspecialty services. We hypothesize that in surgical patients, completion of workup prior to consultation will decrease consultation-to-decision time, ED wait times, and LOS in the ED. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at a single site including all overnight general surgery consultations from the ED over 2-months. Data collected included wait times, LOS, and workup completed prior to consultation. Summary statistics were calculated and bivariate tests were performed using t-tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: Time to final surgical plan and LOS in ED were evaluated for 137 patients comparing "complete" and "incomplete" workups at time of consultation. It was considered a "complete" workup if labs and imaging were resulted prior to time of consult. If any baseline tests were not ordered prior to time of consult, it was considered an "incomplete" workup. Analysis demonstrated an average time of 4.9 and 2.5 hours for consultation-to-decision time for "incomplete" and "complete" workups respectively (p < 0.0001). For LOS in ED, there was an average of 11.4 and 7.9 hours for "incomplete" and "complete" workups respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference in consultation-to-decision time and LOS in the ED when consultation is performed following a complete versus incomplete workup for surgical patients independent of inherent wait times for testing to result and the need for additional testing requested from consulting services. Developing strategies to optimize workups from the ED prior to surgical consultation, including the development of care pathways, could significantly decrease patient wait times and LOS in the ED.
