Is it the length or reason that makes the patient angry for waiting?

It's a common assumption that long wait times are the primary cause of patient anger, but research suggests that the reason for the wait is always more important than the wait time itself. Patients are more likely to become frustrated and angry when they perceive their wait to be unnecessary or poorly managed.

For example, if a patient is waiting to see a doctor for a routine check-up and they see other patients with more urgent needs being seen before them, they may feel their wait is unnecessary and become angry. Similarly, if a patient is waiting for a long time without any updates or communication from staff, they may feel their wait is poorly managed and become frustrated.

Effective communication and management of wait times can go a long way in reducing patient anger. Keeping patients informed about their wait time and the reason for the delay can help manage expectations and reduce frustration. Staff should also strive to make the waiting area as comfortable as possible, with amenities like water, reading material, or a television.

?

One hour or 12 minutes case

In response to the low NPS score from a patient who claimed to have waited for an hour to see a doctor, I decided to investigate the matter further. I immediately called the manager of the reception and the patient relation manager to discuss the patient's feedback. I explained that the patient had given us a one out of five NPS score because she claimed to have waited for an hour to see a doctor.

The patient relation manager responded by saying that they do not let patients wait for an hour and suggested that there may have been a misunderstanding or mistake. However, I knew that the department in question could be challenging and decided to delve deeper into the issue.

Upon checking the patient's records, the reception manager discovered that she had an appointment with an allergy doctor at 11:00 am. The allergy doctor was one of the most available doctors in our portfolio. Since the reception manager knows this issue, she immediately asked check the camera recordings to determine the exact wait time. She was sure that a patient of that doctor could not wait for one hour.

After waiting for about 30 minutes, the reception manager burst into my office, along with the patient relations manager, and declared that the patient was lying. She continued that according to the camera recordings the patient had only waited for 12 minutes, not one hour as claimed in her feedback. The time from when she registered to the time she entered the allergy doctor's room was captured on the camera, and it clearly showed that the wait time was only 12 minutes.

We were confused as to why the patient had exaggerated the waiting time to an hour and wanted to clarify the issue. According to reception manager, there was nothing to please some kind of patients and they tend to lie for their interest this patient was for sure that kind. There was nothing to do. As a hospital manager, I instructed the patient relations manager to ask the patient what the problem was and why they felt the need to complain about a regular waiting time, as ten to fifteen minutes of wait time is common in all hospitals worldwide. We needed to understand the root cause of the complaint and ensure that all patients received the best possible service.

The patient's response was detailed and shed light on the reason for her complaint. According to her, she was asked to wait until the previous patient who was in doctors room had left. So the patient decided to sit in front of the door of the doctor to be close and enter as soon as possible. She claimed to have waited for around ten minutes, or as the hospital staff had later confirmed, 12 minutes, before asking the receptionist whether the previous patient had left. However, the receptionist told her to wait and called? the doctor's room to check. After less than a minute, the receptionist informed her that she could enter the room. But to her surprise, when she entered the room, she saw that the doctor was alone, and there was no previous patient.

The patient felt that the receptionist had lied to her and made her wait with false information. She found this unethical and felt that her feelings were disregarded. Although she had exaggerated the waiting time to an hour, she was still upset by the situation. As a result, she complaint, gave the lowest NPS score? and expressed her dissatisfaction with the hospital's staff.

When I heard this feedback, it was very clear for me that from now on, almost in all complaint cases, I would accept the claims of the patient as true. In fact, according to statistics, it's estimated that 98% of patient claims should be assumed as true, with only 2% of cases involving what seems to be spoiled patients who may lie to get what they want. While these cases are rare, we must still be aware of them.

Even in cases where the only witnesses are the patient and our employees, we have decided to accept the claim of the patient as the reality, with the exception of those 2% of cases where we suspect dishonesty. We cannot ignore these cases entirely, but we must approach them with skepticism and gather as much evidence as possible before making a judgment.

After this case, we held a meeting with all receptionists? and team leaders in the hospital and made it clear that we will be treating patient claims as facts going forward. Their explanations will no longer hold as much weight, and we will focus on managing patient wait times to prevent dissatisfaction. It's important to note that our data shows that wait times themselves are not always the source of patient dissatisfaction; rather, it's the way in which we manage those wait times that can lead to frustration and complaints.

I immediately knew that the patient had made a mistake and was satisfied that we had addressed the matter. It was important to investigate the situation thoroughly, even if it was time-consuming, to ensure that the hospital's reputation and the patient's experience were not negatively impacted. The incident served as a reminder that it is essential to verify patient feedback before making any assumptions or changes.

Research? findings are in line with the general consensus among healthcare professionals that waiting times are not a significant driver of patient satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Patients understand that unforeseeable circumstances can arise, causing delays in their care. However, what is important is how these delays are managed and communicated to the patient.

Patients should be informed about the expected waiting times and the reasons behind any delays, such as an emergency case or an unexpected complication. Effective communication and transparency can go a long way in managing patients' expectations and reducing their anxiety and frustration. This requires a coordinated effort from the entire healthcare team, including the receptionists, nurses, and doctors, to ensure that patients are kept informed and updated throughout their care journey.?

It is also important to note that while waiting times may not be a significant factor in patient satisfaction, they can still have an impact on patient experience and overall perception of the hospital or healthcare facility. Therefore, healthcare organizations should strive to minimize waiting times as much as possible while also ensuring that patients are adequately informed and cared for during any delays.

?

Radiotherapy patients waited for 10 hours

I remember another incident that occurred during my time as a hospital manager, which left a lasting impression on me. It was a day like any other, and I was busy attending to my daily responsibilities when I was approached by the receptionist Emma from the radiotherapy department and her manager. They appeared to be flustered and said to me, "Sir, we have an emergency." Naturally, I was concerned and asked them to elaborate on the situation.

They went on to explain that the radiotherapy device had malfunctioned, and technicians had already contacted the manufacturer and engineers to come and fix it. However, they had no idea when the device would be operational again. In the meantime, there were three patients already waiting for their appointments, and they were unsure how to manage the situation. They also informed me that they would be contacting the rest of the patients to inform them of the delay.?

It was my responsibility to find a solution to this unforeseen problem. I considered the situation and suggested that we hold all the appointments and try to reschedule them if possible. Of course before that decision, I have talked to chief physician of Radiotherapy department. Emma agreed to contact the patients and see what could be done. After an hour, she called me again and informed me that two or three patients had already arrived at the hospital. Emma explained that they had contacted the patients and tried to reschedule their sessions for the following day. However, five patients were already on their way to the hospital and among them, three had traveled from out of the city. It would have been impractical to send them back home, so we had to find an alternative solution for them. In total, there were eight patients affected by the issue, and two of them could not be reached as they did not answer their phone.

After an hour had passed, Emma returned to inform me that the number of patients had increased significantly. There were now ten patients waiting, and that was after she had managed to postpone ten patients to the next days. However, the remaining ten had traveled from far away and had already been waiting for at least two hours. Emma expressed concern that the patients were starting to become agitated and angry, and asked me for advice on how to manage the situation.

I advised her that it was essential to manage the patients' waiting time by providing timely and accurate information about the situation. She should work closely with the technicians and the chief physician of the radiotherapy department to manage the patients' expectations and keep them informed about what was happening. The key was to explain the reason for the delay and to reassure the patients that they would receive the proper treatment once the problem was resolved.

Emma and her manager agreed with my advice, and they immediately began to implement a plan to manage the patients' waiting time. They provided regular updates every hour, with Emma being the first point of contact for the patients, and then the chief physician of the radiotherapy department provided more detailed information about the status of the device.

The chief physician explained that the device has malfunctioned, and the engineers were working on fixing it. He emphasized that the priority was to give the patients the best possible treatment, and that the delay was necessary to ensure that the device was working correctly. He also thanked the patients for their patience and understanding, which helped to ease their concerns.?

As the hours ticked by, the patients grew increasingly anxious about whether or not they would be able to receive their treatment that day. The third hour of waiting brought with it an update from the chief technician of the radiotherapy department, who informed the patients that the engineers had arrived and were actively working to repair the device.

By the fourth hour of waiting, the patients were feeling understandably tired. It was at this point that the chief physician of the department and professor of radiotherapy stepped in to reassure them. He emphasized the importance of their treatment plan and assured the patients that it was vital for them to receive their session that day, and that any delay could potentially impact their treatment plan.

After the doctors' initial reassurances, the patients settled in for a long wait. Despite the delay, the medical staff remained dedicated to ensuring that the patients were well cared for during their time in the waiting area. Emma was diligent in keeping patients informed of the latest developments in the repair process, and even ordered meals, coffee and tea for everyone to make sure they were comfortable and nourished.

As the hours ticked by, patients tried to make themselves as comfortable as possible on the chairs and couches, while others distracted themselves with their phones or music. But the waiting didn’t seem to be affecting patients negatively and most of them seemed to be calm and composed.

The medical staff continued to work tirelessly to resolve the issue with the radiotherapy device. After several hours of work, the engineers finally appeared to have made progress, and the chief physician of the department updated the patients once again. Although it was still unclear when the device would be fully operational, it was clear that the team was doing everything in their power to get it up and running as soon as possible. The physicians even declared that they will accompany the waiting patients and not leave them alone.

Finally, after many long hours, the patients were able to begin their treatments. It was about 1 am when the last patient finally left for his home, It was a grueling experience, but the medical staff remained dedicated to their patients' well-being throughout. In average the patients waited for about 10 hours. In the end, they? were able to receive the care they needed, even if it meant waiting long into the night. Despite the challenges, the medical team's commitment to their patients never wavered.

After the incident, we were left amazed at the unexpected outcome. Despite the long waiting hours, we were able to keep the patients informed and comfortable, and to our surprise, all the? patients gave us a perfect five out of five score for their satisfaction level on the NPS. This truly showed us that it's not just about the length of waiting, but how you manage it. We realized that proper management of the waiting time is a key factor in ensuring patient satisfaction, loyalty and trust.

We shared this story with the entire healthcare team, including the managers and the C-suite executives, to emphasize the importance of managing waiting times. We encouraged everyone to learn from this experience and make changes to their own practices to ensure patient satisfaction and loyalty. By prioritizing the patient experience and taking steps to manage their waiting time, we can create a more positive and comforting environment for our patients.

?

Best Way to Manage Waiting Time?

Peter Pronovost, a critical care specialist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, understood the significance of having a uniform checklist for medical procedures in the ICU in 2001. He was convinced that such a checklist would guarantee that all required steps were taken, minimizing the possibility of mistakes and enhancing patient results. Pronovost worked vigorously to create a thorough checklist that encompassed all activities that ICU teams could need to accomplish in a day, ranging from hand hygiene and equipment checks to administering medication.

Peter Pronovost chose to focus on preventing central line infections, which almost caused the death of a patient named Anthony Filippo. He created a simple checklist on a plain sheet of paper that outlined the necessary steps for doctors to follow when inserting a central line to avoid infections.

These steps include washing their hands, cleaning the patient's skin with antiseptic, covering the patient with sterile drapes, wearing protective gear like masks, hats, gowns, and gloves, and placing a sterile dressing over the insertion site after the line is inserted.

Although the steps required to avoid central line infections were considered common knowledge and had been taught for years, Pronovost felt that a checklist was necessary to ensure every step was taken. To test this, he asked ICU nurses to observe doctors for a month as they inserted lines into patients and record how often each step was performed. Surprisingly, more than one-third of patients had at least one step skipped. This prompted Pronovost and his team to convince Johns Hopkins Hospital to authorize nurses to intervene if they saw doctors skipping any steps on the checklist.

The nurses were instructed to inquire with the doctors each day about any lines that needed to be removed to avoid leaving them in for longer than necessary. This was a new and revolutionary approach. Previously, nurses had used various methods to encourage doctors to follow procedures, from gentle reminders like, "Did you forget your mask, doctor?" to more forceful tactics like body checking. However, many nurses were uncertain about their role and whether certain measures were within their purview. The new rule provided clear support from the administration for nurses to intervene if doctors did not follow every step. Pronovost and his team monitored the results for a year and were amazed by the dramatic improvement: the ten-day line infection rate dropped from 11% to zero. They continued to monitor patients for an additional 15 months and found only nine infections during the entire period. The checklist prevented 43 infections and 8 deaths, and saved $2 million in costs at that hospital alone.

For the prevention of central line infections, hospitals must? have very strict checklists that nurses and doctors follow. These efforts are not seen by the patients. However, when it comes to managing patient waiting times, hospitals don’t use any checklists, despite waiting times being easily seen, felt, and interpreted by patients.

For this reason, even if the hospital’s management system does not meet with patients' needs, we can create a simple checklist for the receptionist to manage patient waiting times. In the morning, hospitals should print out a list of all appointments scheduled for the day. When a patient arrives, the receptionist should mark them as checked-in on the list. Once they enter the doctor's room or procedure area, they should be marked as completed.?

With this updated checklist, we will know who is waiting in the waiting area, their name, and how many patients are in front of them. When a patient asks when they will see the doctor, we? can easily inform them of the number of patients ahead of them and provide an estimated wait time. This approach provides patients with the assurance that someone is managing their waiting time, leading to a more relaxed and satisfied experience.

If the receptionist physically displays the checklist in the waiting area by holding in her hand, patients will see that their waiting time is being managed, reducing their anxiety and increasing their satisfaction. Conversely, if patients do not see anyone with a checklist, they may become anxious, thinking that others may enter the doctor's room before them. This uncertainty can lead to lower satisfaction levels and a lower likelihood of recommendation.

I recommend that this approach be implemented in all hospital waiting areas. Based on my experience, departments that manage waiting times with physical checklists have a 20% higher Net Promoter Score (NPS) than those that do not. Furthermore, regularly displaying the checklist to manage waiting times should be a continuous process at the reception desk.

Being well-organized is essential for creating a positive experience for patients in a hospital setting. Patients should feel that the hospital is organized and prepared to meet their needs. One of the key aspects of this is focusing on the basic areas that patients will need to access, such as reception areas, waiting rooms, and treatment rooms. These areas should be designed to be easily accessible and should be clearly labeled to ensure that patients can find their way around without confusion or difficulty. Additionally, it's important to ensure that the staff is well-trained and prepared to assist patients in navigating the hospital and accessing the care they need. By focusing on these basic organizational elements, hospitals can create an environment that is welcoming, efficient, and patient-centered.