Comparability of Two Methods of Time and Motion Study Used in a Clinical Setting: Work Sampling and Continuous Observation
Comparability of Two Methods of Time and Motion Study Used in a Clinical Setting: Work Sampling and Continuous Observation
复制标题
临床环境中使用的两种时间和运动研究方法的可比性：工作抽样和连续观察
DOI：
10.1097/00005650-197711000-00009
复制
发表时间：
1977
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
G. Perkoff
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Wirth;L. Kahn;G. Perkoff
两种方法的时间和运动的研究，连续观察和工作抽样，被用来衡量医生的行为在预付费的集体实践。比较两种方法的结果，以确定是否因方法而产生差异。没有显着差异出现在时间/单位的病人服务的82%的医生研究，也没有连续观察员的存在影响的病人服务/半天的观察单位的数量。非病人活动显示出稍大的差异，虽然74%的平均活动时间的比较仍然没有显示。发现差异的可能原因可能是两个研究阶段的环境差异或观察者的接近程度。尽管如此，总的来说，这两种方法显示出高度的相似性。除非对医患接触的确切内容特别感兴趣，否则当需要连续观察时，由于时间、成本和观察者对非患者活动的可能影响，工作抽样是首选。
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.