Sharma, Nita

ObjectiveAdvanced practice providers (APPs) may see patients independently or assist in “collaborative” clinics in otolaryngology practices. Our goal was to redesign the collaborative physician‐APP clinic model to increase patient access, maintain financial sustainability, and optimize patient and staff experience.MethodsThe study was performed in a tertiary care academic rhinology clinic seeing adult patients. The DMAIC framework (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) was used to develop the new model. The process shift between old and new models was analyzed by utilizing a statistical process control chart. Patient and staff surveys were tracked.ResultsThe collaborative physician‐APP model was redesigned into 2 parallel and independently run (“concurrent”) physician and APP clinics. Patient access increased by 38.9% from a mean of 17.9 patients per collaborative clinic (n = 15 days, 269 patients) to 29.3 patients per concurrent clinic (n = 12 days, 352 patients). Medicare reimbursement rate modeling showed the collaborative clinic to operate at a loss of $1341.51 per day, while the concurrent clinic model operated at a $1309.88 gain (200% positive change). Patient and staff experience tracked positively.DiscussionOtolaryngology clinics can become overwhelmed by the volume of empaneled established patients. Traditional collaborative physician‐APP clinics see the same panel of patients together. However, these can be successfully redesigned to a concurrent model. Concurrent clinics improve patient access and provider satisfaction while maintaining patient satisfaction and fiscal performance.Implications for PracticeLeveraging an experienced APP to run a parallel and independent clinic alongside the physician (concurrent clinic model) may improve patient access, financial metrics, and patient/staff experience.

Background: The study objective was to investigate the willingness to pay (WTP) for teledermoscopy services among students at a university health center. The hypothesis was that WTP for teledermoscopy among students would exceed the costs for traditional consultation. Methods: Between November 2013 and May 2014, students at a university health center were surveyed for their perceptions of teledermoscopy. One set of responses was collected from students visiting the health center for any reason (anonymous sample). An additional set of responses was collected from students visiting for dermatologic lesions (in-person sample). A contingent valuation method with a maximum likelihood estimation procedure was used to estimate the WTP distribution. Results: A total of 214 surveys were collected for the anonymous sample and 41 responses for the in-person sample. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) WTP for the anonymous sample was $55.27 ($39.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: $49.99-$60.55). The mean (SD) WTP for the in-person sample was $52.37 ($26.56; 95% CI: $43.99-$60.75). Median WTP for the 2 samples was similar: $48.84 and $48.01. Conclusions: We conclude that students would be willing to pay for teledermoscopy services that would provide the potential for significant system cost savings. This may be especially true in college health or similar settings where dermatology services may not be available.