Perception of consultation length in cardiology and its ethical implications

Abstract

This study considered whether the time employers allotted to medical consultations in many working environments in Argentina might be inadequate to carry out an interview. The objective was to conduct a survey to gather information on the length of cardiologic medical consultations in Argentina. During 2007, a survey was carried out that included 816 cardiologists. Seventy-six percent of participants said they needed 20 to 30 minutes, and 14% considered that 15 minutes was sufficient, for an adequate consultation. On the other hand, 64% reported that their employer required that consultations be done in 10 to 15 minutes, and 86% cited limits of less than 20 minutes (P < 0.0001). This time was inadequate for 60% of physicians. With regard to ethics, 89% answered affirmatively that requiring that patients be attended in such a short time could be considered an ethical flaw of the employer; 75% acknowledged their own ethical flaw when agreeing to conduct the consultation in an inadequate amount of time. When opinions were grouped, 22% considered that an adequate consultation length was fundamental for a correct patient-physician relationship, 27% reported that this time depended on "pressures" of the system, 19% indicated that inadequate consultation length affected the quality of attention patients received, 17% thought that low fees forced employers to reduce this time with a resulting detriment in quality of care, and 15% said that consultation length was variable and depended on the patient. This study showed that 60% of physicians perceived as insufficient the time their employers allotted for conducting an adequate consultation. Most believed that allotting such a short time for examining patients could be considered an ethical flaw.