FROM VITAL & HEALTH STATISTICS OF THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE � Public Health Service I Number 34 � August 30,1978 

Office Visits to Otolaryngologists: National Ambulatory 

Medical Care Survey, United States: 1975-761 

Based on data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), this report describes an estimated 27,192,000 visits 

made to the offices of otolaryngologists over the 

2-year span from January 1975 through December 1976. NAMCS is a sample survey designed to explore the provision and utilization of 

ambulatory care in the physician’s office-the 

setting where most Americans seek health care. 

The survey is conducted yearly throughout the 

coterminous United States by the Division of 

Health Resources Utilization Statistics of the 

National Center for Health Statistics. The survey 

sample is selected from doctors of medicine and 

osteopathy who are principally engaged in 

o f fice-based, patient-care practice. Excluded 

from the sample are an indeterminate number of 

physicians who render some office-based ambulatory care but whose patient-care activities are 

secondary to another primary role such as teaching, research, or administration. Also excIuded 

from the NAMCS scope are physicians who are 

hospital based; those whose specialty is anesthesiology, pathology, or radiology; and physicians 

in Federal Service. 

Because the estimates presented in this report are based on a sample rather than on the 

entire universe of office-based physicians, they 

are subject to sampling variability. See the 

Technical Notes for an explanation and for 

guidelines in judging the relative precision of the 

estimates. The directions offered there also provide the basis for judging the statistical signiflThis report was prepared by Hugo Koch, Division of 

HealthResourcesUtilizationStatistics. 

icance of differences between estimates that the 

reader may desire to compare. 

DATA HIGHLIGHTS 

With an estimated 27,192,000 office visits 

during the 2-year span 1975-76, otoku-yngologists were among the 13 specialkts who figured most prominently in the provision of 

office-based ambulatory care (see table 1). 

Compared with the entire universe of officebased physicians, otoku-yngologists reversed the 

overall preference for solo over multiple-member 

practice (table 2); well over one-half (61 percent) of visits to otolaryngologists were made to 

those in multiple-member practice arrangements. 

Table 1. Number of off ice visits to the 13 most visited specialists, 

by type of specialty in rank order: United States, 1975-76 

Number of 

Rant Type of specialty visits in 

thousands 

1 General and family practice .. .. ... . ... . . ... .. 460,297 

2 Internal medicine . . .... .. ... . . .... .. .. ... .. . .. . .. . 130,367 

Pdiatrics ... . .... .. .. .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. . . ... .. 107,085 

: Obstetrics and gynecology ... .. .. .. .. . .. . . .... 97,070 

5 General surgery .. ... ... .. .. . .. ... .. .. .... .. . .. . .. ... 77,259 

6 Ophthalmlogy . ... . .. . .. .. ... .. ... . ... . ... .. . ... .. . 53,959 

7 Orthopedic surgery .. .. . .... .. .. .. . .... .. .. . .. ... . 47,152 

8 Dermatology .. .. .. ... ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. . .. . .. .... 35,721 

9 Psychiatry ... . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... .. . .. .. .. 30,616 

10 Otoluryngology ..................................... 27,192 

11 Urology .. ... . ... . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ... . ... .... .... . . ... . . . 20,728 

12 Cardiovascular disease . .. ... . ... ... .. .. ... . . .. .. . 13,517 

13 Neurology ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... . ... .. ... . ... .. . ... . .. 3,784 
2 

Table 2. Number and percent distribution of office visits to 

otolaryngologists, and percent distribution of office visits to 

ail specialists by ~hysician characteristics: United States, 

197~-76 

Physician 

characteristic 

All visits............. 

Location 

of practic~ 

Metropolitan area2.. 

Nonmetropolitan 

area ........................ 

Type of practice 

S010 ........................ 

Other ....................... 

Visits to Visits to all 

oto Iaryngo Iogists specialists 

Wmber in Percent Percent 

:houaands Distribution distribution 

27,192 100.0 100.0 

20,502 75.4 73.3 

6,691 24.6 26.7 

10,524 38.7 60.0 

16,668 61.3 40.0 

lJjased on an estimated 1,155,900,000 visits made to all 

office-based physicians in 1975 and 1976. 

2~~atio* within a standard rnetropolit an stat istical area 

(SMSA). Composition of SMSA’S does not reflect 1974 adjustments. -

Though otolaryngologists treated patients of 

all ages, the median visit age of 35 years which 

typified their office-based practice was not substantially different frpm the median visit age of 

37 years characteristic of overall office-based 

practice. However, among otolaryngologists, 

there did appear to be a relatively greater concentration of visits (22 percent) by patients 

under 15 years of age (table 3). 

AImost one-half (47 percent) of visits to 

otolaryngologists were made by male patients, a 

proportion that somewhat exceeded that found 

in overall office-based practice (table 3). 

The 31 percent of visits to otolaryngologists 

made by new patients is about twice the comparable proportion found on the average among 

all office-based practitioners (prior-visit status, 

table 3). Indeed, among the most visited specialists (listed in table 1), only neurologists exceeded otolaryngologists in this proportion. 

Contributing in part to this increased presence 

of new patients is the finding that 5.8 percent of 

visits to otolaryngologists were referrals, a referral rate that more than doubled the average 

rate of 2.6 percent common to overall officebased practice. For the 10,907,000 visits at 

Table 3. Number and percent distribution of office visits to 

otolaryngologists, and percent distribution of office visits to 

all specialists, by pstient characteristics: United States, 

1975-76 ‘ “ 

Visits to Iisits to all 

Patient otolaryngologists specialists 

characteristic dumber in Percent Percent 

housends Distribution jistributionl 

All visits,..., ........ 27,192 100.0 100.0 

Age 

Under 15 years......... 5,967 22.0 18.1 

15-24 years.............. 3,458 12.7 15.1 

25-44 years.............. 7,434 27.3 25.5 

45.64 years.............. 6,623 24.4 25.1 

65 years and over.... 3,710 13,6 16.2 

— 

sex

Female .................... 74,412 53.0 60.4 

Male.., ..................... 12,781 47,0 39.6 

Prior-visit status 

New patient ............. 8,471 31.2 14.6 

Old patient, new 

problem ................. 2,436 9,0 23.2 

Old patient, old 

problem ................. 16,285 59.9 62.3 

l~sed on an estimated 1,155,900,000 visits made to all 

office-based physicians in 1975”and “1976. 

which a new problem was presented to the 

otolaryngologist (i.e., 8,471,000 visits by new 

patients plus 2,436,000 visits by old patients 

with new problems), there were 16,285,000 

return visits, an average of 1.5 return visits per 

new problem per year, a return-visit rate that did 

not differ substantially from the average of 1.6 

return visits found in overall office practice. 

Table 4 shows the 10 complaints or symptoms that most frequently prompted a visit to 

the otolaryngologist. The terms and codes applied to these symptoms or complaints are those 

developed for use in the NAMCS.2 

2National Center for Health Statistics: The National 

Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: Symptom classification, United States. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2-

No. 63. DHEW Pub. No. (HRA) 741337. Health 

Resources Administration. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1974. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

a&medaa3 

Table 4. Number, percent, and cumulative percent of office visits to otolaryngologists, bv the 10 most common complaints or svm~toms . . presentad by patients, classified by NAMCS codes and rank~ by fr;quency of visits: United States, 1975-76 

Number of Percent >umulative Rank Complaint or symptom and NAMCS code visits in of visits percent thousands 

Earache........................... .................................................................................. 735 2,853 10.5 10.5 

Hearing dysfunctions other than deafness......................................................... 731 2,339 8.6 19.1 

Ear symptoms n.e.c. (e.g., foreign body in ear, itching, swelling, or mess)........ 740 2,195 8.1 27.2 

Sore throat .................................................. .................... ................................. 520 2,018 7.4 34.6 

Nasal mngeWion .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... . ... .. . .... . ... .. ... .. . ... .. . .. . .. .... . ... . ... .. . .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ... ... . .... . 301 1,624 6.0 40.6 

Pain, swelling, iniury of face and neck r~ion .................................................... 410 1,028 3.8 44.4 

Pluggad feeling in ear ....................................................................................... .. 737 1,010 3.7 48.1 

Headache ......................... .................................................................................. 056 723 2.7 50.8 

Sinus problems .................................................................................................. 304 717 2.6 53.4 

Vertigo .............................................................................................................. 069 660 2.4 55.8 

The complaints that patients presented to 

o f f ice -b ased otolaryngokyjsts signaled conditions of illness or injury that were about 

equally divided between acute problems, defined 

for NAMCS use as conditions having an onset 

within 3 months of the visit, and chronic problems, defined as preexisting conditions having an 

onset of 3 months or more before the visit. (In 

overall office-practice, visits for acute problems 

outnumbered those for chronic problems by a 

ratio of about 1.2 to 1.) Only urologists and 

dermatologists exceeded otolaryngologists in the 

proportion of visits classified as “chronic probkm, f7are-up ,“ that is, sudden exacerbation of a 

preexisting chronic condition. An estimated 19 

percent of the otoki.ryngologist’s visits fell into 

this category. The overall average for officebased practice was about 11 percent. 

Table 5 presents data on the 10 principal 

diagnoses m&t frequently rendered” by he 

o f f ice -b as ed otolaryngologist. The principal 

diagnosis was the first-listed diagnosis on a survey form that permitted up to three diagnostic 

entries. Table 6 classifies all pnncipzd diagnoses 

made by otolaryngologists by major diagnostic 

groups. Diagnostic classes and codes are those 

established by the Eighth Revision International 

Classification of Diseases, Adapted for Use in 

the United States, 1968 (ICDA). 3 

3National Center for Health Statistics: Ez&tls Revkio n InternationalClassification of Dkeases, Adapted 

for Use in the United States. PHS Pub. No. 1693. Public 

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1968, 

Table 5. Number, percent, and cumulative ~ercent of office visits to otolarvnqoloqists. bv the 10 ~rincioal diaanoses most fraouentlv . .

render~ by the physicians in rank order; U-nite~ States, 1975-76 -

Number of Percent Cumulative Rank Principal diagnosis and ICDA code visits in of visits percent thousands 

Otitis media ........................................................................................................38l 3,518 12.9 12.9 

Medical and surgical aftercare ............................................................................Y1 o 2,394 8.8 21.7 

Other diseasesof ear and mastoid proa~ ........................................ ................. 387 2,038 7.5 29.2 

Otitis externa .....................................................................................................38O 1,787 6.6 35.8 

Hay fever ............o.............................................................................................. 507 1,637 6.0 41,8 

Deafness, other than deaf mutism ......................................................................389 1,276 4.7 48.5 

Chronic sinusitis,,,. ,,,.,,.,,...,.. ...,,, ,,,,.,, ,...,,. ..........................................................503 1,122 4.1 50.6 

Hypertrophy of tonsils and adenoids ..................................................................500 889 3.7 54,3 

Chronic pharyngitis and nasopharyngitis ............................................................5O2 851 3.1 57.4 

Other diseasesof respiratory symem..................................................................5O8 768 2.8 60,2 
4


Table 6. Number and percent distribution of office visits to 

otolaryngologists, by major diagnostic group: United Statas, 

1975-76 

Number of Major diagnostic group Parcent 

and ICDA codes visits in ~istribution 

thousands 

All diagnostic groups............. 27,192 100.0 

Infective and parasitic 

diseases............................ 000-136 504 1.9 

Diseasesof the nervous system and 

sense organs..................... 320-389 10,487 38.6 

Diseasesof the respiratory 

system ............................. 460-519 8,716 32.1 

Diseasesof the digestive 

system ............................. 520-577 588 2.2 

Diseasesof the skin and 

subcutaneous tissue..........660-709 479 1.8 

Symptoms and illdefined 

conditions ...................... ..78O-796 1,782 6.6 

Accidents, poisonings, and 

violence ........................... 800-999 469 1.7 

Special conditions and examinations without sickness..YOO-Yl 3 2,692 9.9 

Residual .......... ................ ................ 1,466 5.2 

To establish a diagnosis, office-based 

otolaryngologists relied chiefly on a limited history and examination (table 7), that is, one 

focused on the body sites specific to their professional perspective and concerned primarily 

with the patient’s chief complaint (e.g., earache 

or sore throat). Use of laboratory tests and 

blood pressure checks was minimal compared 

with the average use of these diagnostic procedures in overall office-based practice. Drug 

therapy was the treatment most frequently provided by otolaryngologists, who used it in about 

48 percent of visits, a proportion that roughly 

paralleled its use by the average office-based 

physician. The use of minor surgical procedures 

in the office of the otolaryngologist (in about 12 

percent of visits) substantiality exceeded the 

average use of office surgery in overall office 

practice (table 7). 

Table 8 offers data on the severity of the 

problems that patients presented to the otolaryngologist, expressing the doctor’s judgment 

of the extent of impairment that might result if 

no care were available. Closely paralleling the 

Tabla 7. Number and Percent of office visits to otolaryngologists, and percent of office visits to all specialists, by diagnostic and 

therapeutic services provided: United States, 1975-76 

Diagnostic and therapeutic services provided 

No servicesprovided ................................................................................................................... 

Diagnostic services: 

Limited history or examination ............................................................................................ 

General history or examination ............................................................................................ 

Clinical lab test ..................................................................................................................... 

X.ray .................................................................................................................................... 

Blood pressure check ............................................................................................................ 

Hearing test .......................................................................................................................... 

Therapeutic services: 

Drug prescribed ..................................................................................................................... 

Injection ................................................................................................................................ 

Immunization or dewnsitimtion' ........................................................................................... 

Office surgery........................................................................................................................ 

Medical counseling................................,..,,. .!...,..,. ................................................................ 

Other services provided .............................................................................................................. 

Visits to all Visits to otolaryngoloists specialists 

Number of 

visits in Percent Percentl 

thousends 

1,337 4,9 2.5 

15,166 55.8 51.6 

2,884 11,0 16.3 

762 2.8 22.8 

1,636 6.0 7.6 

496 1.8 33.2 

3,548 13.1 1.3 

782 2.9 5.0 

12,955 47.6 43.6 

2,428 8.9 13.1 

627 2.3 4,9 

3,150 11.6 6.9 

2,871 10.6 13.0 

1,754 6.5 5.6 

lBa~ed on an eati~ated 1,155,900,000 viaits made to aSloffice-based physicians in 1975 and 1976. 
admce&a5 

Table 8. Number and percent distribution of	 office visits to otolaryngologists, and percent of office visits to all specialists, by selected 

visit characteristics: Unitad States, 1975-76 

/isits to otolaryngologists 

Visit characteristic al

All visits ........................................................................................................................... 

serious of problem 

Serious and vary serious .................................. ........................................................................... 

Slightly serious ........................................... ................................................................................. 

Not serious .,.,..,. s..,..,, ,.,... ..........................................................................................................., 

Disposition (selected actions) 

No followup ................................................................................................................................ 

Return at specified time .............................................................................................................. 

Return if needad......................................................................................................................... 

Telephone foilowup .................................................................................................................... 

Referred to other physician or agency......................................................................................... 

Admit to hospital ........................................................................................................................ 

Duration of visit 

O minute (no face-to.face encounter with physician) .................................................................. 

1-5 minutes ..................................... ............................................................................................ 

6-10 minutas ................................................................................................. .............................. 

11-15 minutes ............................................................................................................................. 

16-30 minutas ....................................................................... ...................................................... 

31 minutes or more ..................................................................................................................... 

1 Based on an estimated 1,155,900,000 viaits made to all ofice-based physicians in 1975 and 1976. 

27,192 100.0 100.0 

4,934 

10,286 

11,972 

3,913 

13,661 

7,225 

682 

�458 

1,170 

�434 

3,796 

10,222 

6,377 

5,735 

630 

18.2 19.2 

37.8 32.3 

44.0 46.5 

14.4 12.3 

50.2 60.2 

26.6 21.9 

2.5 3.5 

�1 .7 2.8 

4.3 2.1 

�I .6 1.8 

14.0 15.1 

37.6 31.5 

23.5 26.6 

21.1 19.5 

2.3 5.5 

average tendency among all office-based practitioners, otolaryngologists judged most of their 

patients’ problems (about 4 of every 5) to range 

from slightly serious to not serious in prognosis. 

Otolaryngologists ended 1 of every 2 visits 

by scheduling a return visit at a specified time– 

their single, most frequent form of disposition 

(table 8). In their reliance on specific followup 

they were in accord with the general tendency 

found in all office-based practice, though they 

used this disposition action with a frequency 

which was substantially less than average, tending to apply with a greater-than-average frequency the nonspecific direction “return if 

needed. ” The nonserious nature of most of the 

otolaryngologists’ office practice is reflected in 

the small proportion of visits that resulted in 

hospital admission. It is noteworthy, however, 

that this relatively small admission rate was still 

more than double the average rate of hospital 

admission found in all office-based practice. 

Three-fourths of visits to otolaryngologists 

involved a doctor-patient contact that was under 

15 minutes in duration, the average contact 

probably lasting about 14 minutes–not substantially different from the average finding for 

all office-based practitioners (15 minutes). 
6 

TECHNICAL NOTES 

SOURCE OF DATA. The information presented 

in this report is based on data collected in the 

Nat ion al Ambulatory Medical Care Survey 

(NAMCS) during 1975 and 1976. The target 

population of the NAMCS encompasses office 

visits made within the coterminous United 

States by ambulatory patients to physicians not 

in Federal Service who are principally engaged in 

office practice, and not in the specialties of 

anesthesiology, pathology, or radiology. The 

National Opinion Research Center, under contract to the National Center for Health Statistics, was the organization responsible for the 

survey’s field operation. 

SAMPLE DESIGN. The NAMCS utilizes a multistage probability design that involves samples of 

primary sampling units (PSU’S), physician practices within PSU’S, and patient visits within 

practices. Each year a sample of practicing 

physicians is selected from master files maintained by the American Medical Association and 

the American Osteopathic Association. (For the 

2-year period 1975-76, a total of 149 otolaryngologists were included in the Sample. 

They achieved a response rate of 83 percent.) 

Characteristics of the physician’s practice, such 

as Primary sPeci~tY and type of practice$ are 

obtained during an induction interview. 

The physicians are requested to complete 

Patient Records (brief encounter forms) for a 

systematic random sampIe of office visitsduring a 

randomly assigned weekly reporting period.4 (In 

the 2-year period 1975-76, sampled otolaryngologists completed a total of 2,786 Patient 

Records.) A detailed description of the NAMCS 

design and procedures has been presented in the 

publication “The National Ambulatory Medical 

Care Survey: 1975 Summary.”5 

SAMPLING ERRORS. Because the estimates for 

this report are based on a sample rather than on 

the entire universe, they are subject to sampling 

variability. The standard error is primarily a 

4A facsixnile of the Patient Record appears as FigureI. 

5National Center for Health Statistics: The National 

Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1975 Summary, 

United States, January-December 1975. Vitoland Health 

Statistics. Series13-No. 33, DHEW Pub. (PHS) 78-1784. 

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Dec. 

1977. 

measure of sampling variability. The relative 

standard error of an estimate is obtained by 

dividing the standard error of the estimate by 

the estimate itself and is expressed as a percent 

of the estimate. ReIative standard errors of selected aggregate statistics are shown in table I. 

The standard errors appropriate for estimated 

percentages of visits are shown in table II. 

DEFINITIONS. An ambulatory patient is an individual presenting himself for personal health 

services who is neither bedridden nor currently 

admitted to any health care institution. 

An o~~ice is a place that the physician identifies as a location for his ambulatory practice. 

Responsibility over time for patient care and 

Table [. Approximate relative standard error of estimated 

nutier of office visits: United 8tates, 1975-76 

Estimated number of I

Relative standard 

office visits in thousands error in percent 

30.2 

1.m .......................................................... 23.5 

2.0m .......................................................... 16.7 

4.mo .......................................................... 12.0 

lo.mo ........................................................ 8.0 

@.m ........................................................ 4.8 

m.m ...................................................... 3.4 

1,Ocso,oal................................................... 3.1 

Example of use of tabk: An aggregateestimateof 25,s300,000 

visits has a relative standard error of 6.4 percent or a standard 

error of 1,600,000 visits (6.4 percent of 25,000,000). 

Table 11. Approximate standard errors of percentages of estimated nutier of office visits: United States, 197S76 

8ese of percentage Estimated percentage 

nutier of visits 

in thousands 88 

I Standard error in percentage points 

............................. 3.0 6.5 9.0 12.0 13.8 15.0 

1,s300.......................... 2.3 5.1 7.0 9.3. 10.7 11.6 

2,000 .......................... 1.6 3.6 4.9 6.6 7.5 8.2 

4,000 ......................... 1.2 2.5 3.5 4.7 5.3 5.8 

10,000 ........................ 1.6 2.2 2.9 3.4 3.7 

40,000., ...................... Y4 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.7 1,8 

200,000 ...................... 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 

1 ,Ooo,ooo ................... 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0,4 

Example of use of tabk: An estimateof 20 percent baaedon 

anaggregateestimateof 80,000,000 vieits has a standard error of 

1.3 percent. The relative standard error of 20 percent is 6,5 

percent (1.3 percent + 20 percent). 
ackmdda7 

professional services rendered there generally 

resides with the individual physician, rather than 

an institution. 

A visit is a direct personal exchange between 

an ambulatory patient and a physician or a staff 

member working under the ph ysician’s supervision for the purpose of seeking care and 

rendering health services. 

A physician is a duly licensed doctor of 

medicine (MD) or doctor of osteopathy (DO) currently in office-based practice who spends time 

in caring for ambulatory patients. Excluded 

from NAMCS are physicians who are hospital 

based; physicians who specialize in anesthesiology, pathology, and radiology; physicians 

who are federally employed; physicians who 

treat only institutionalized patients; physicians 

employed full time by an institution; and physicians who spend no time seeing ambulatory 

patients. 

Figure 1. PATlENT RECORD 

ASSURANCE OF CO NFIOENTIALIT1’-AN mfonrulion whch would pcfmit idemikation of �n mdkl.al. 

a practice, wan eswbhshnwm WIN b+ hdd m.nf,denlial, WIN Lw used only by ~ns engaged In ad fcf 

the purposes of the suweY and wII “o! b+ d,sclowf w released to other pe,sons or used !c+ any other pwm. 

I

1.	 DATE OF VISIT PATIENT RECORD 

NATIONAL AMBULATORY MEDICAL CARE SURVEY MZm%n’%­ . 

Bh? 

7. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN 

THIs PATIENTBEFORE ? 

I � YES zCINO 

t 

If YES, for the problem 

lnd!cated m ITEM 5a? 

. � YES zCINO 

2. DATE OF BIRTH 4. COLOR OR 

RACE 

I � WHITE 

Md=7’+ 

3. SEX I � NEGRO/ 

BLACK 

I � FEMALE 3 II OTHER 

2 � MALE ~ El uNKNOWN 

5. PATIENT’S PRINCIPAL PROBLESAIS) 6. SERIOUSNESS OF 

COMPLAINT(S), OR SYMPTOM(S) ~ VISIT PROEILEM IN ITEM 5a 

(h patient’s own words) (Check one) 

—
 I •l VERY SERIOUS 

a, MOST 

IMPORTANT	 z � SERIOUS 

, � SLIGHTLy sERj~us 

b. OTHER J � NOT SERIOUS 

8. MAJOR REASONIS) FOR THIS VISIT

— (CACC1dIRIZjOI remom] 9. PHYSICIAN’S PRINCIPAL OIAGNOSIS ~ VISIT

I � ACUTE PROBLEM 

,, � AcuTE pR(JBLEM, FIJLLOW. up 

., � cHRIJNlc pRiJSLEM, RIJuTINE 

. . � cHRONlc PROBLEM, FLARE. UP 

,,, � pRENATAL CARE 

,6 � POSTNATAL CARE 

r? IJ POSTOPERATIVE CARE 

7 

(Operative procedure) 

.8 El 

IS Q 

w � 

*I D 

,7 � 

‘J � 

II � 

a. DIAGNOSIS ASSOCIATED WITH ITEM 5a ENTRY 

WELL ADULT/CHILO EXAM 

FAMILY PLANNING 

CO UNSELING,ADVICE 

IMMUNIZATION 

REFERREO SY OTHER pHYS/AGENCY b, OTHER SIGNIFICANT CURRENT OIAGNOSES 

ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE (In order of importance) 

OTHER (Specify) 

10. DIAGNOSTIC/THERAPEUTIC SERVICES OROEREWPROVIOEOT HIS VISIT (Ch@k#//oW#)) II. DISPOSITION THIS VISIT 12. OURATION OF 

01 � NONE 

02 � LIMITED HISTORYIEXAM 

11 0 ORUG PRESCRIBE 

12 � X4PAY 

(Check�ll that a%) ~ VISIT [Ti17N 

aC(Ud/ySptrlt with 

physician) 

03 � GENERAL HISTORYIEKAM 13 � INXCTION I ti NO FOLLOW-UP PLANNED 

04 � CLINICAL LAB. TESI’ 14 � lMWNl~TIOM/D~EWITl~Tl~ z 0 RETURN AT SPECIFIEO TIME 

0S � BLOOD PRESSURE CHECK M El PHYSIOTHERAPY s •l RETURN IF NEEDEO, P.R.N. 

os � EKG 16 � MEDICAL COUNSELING 4 � TELEPHONE FOLLOW. UP PLANNEO 

07 a HEARING TEST 17 � KYcl?oTHERAPYf7HE RAPEuTlc s •l REFERREO TO OTHER —MINUTES 

08 � VISIDN TEST LIsTENING PHYsIcIAN/AGENCY 

09 D ENDOSCOPY 1S � OTHER &=ocifyl 6 � RETURNEO TO REFERRING 

PHYSICIAN 

10 � OFFICE SURGERY 7 Z AOMIT TO HOSPITAL 

I I I H RA-34-3 OEPARTMENT 0= HEALTH, EOUCATION AND WELFARE O.M.B. #6 S.S72106 REV. 8-74 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION EXPI RATION DATE 12/31/75 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 
------------------------------------- ---

-----------------------------

8


Recent Issues of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 

No. 33.	 Office Vkits to Orthopedic Surgeons, National No. 30.1976 Summary: National Ambulatory Medicsf 

Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: United Care Survey, United States (Issued: July 13, 

States, 1975-76 (Issued: July 18, 1978) 1978) 

No. 32,	 SociodemograpWlc and Health Characteristics No. 29. A Comparison of Nursing Home Residents and 

of Persons by Private Health Insurance Cover- Dkcharges from the 1977 National Nursing 

age and Type of Pfaw United States, 1975 Home Survey: United States (Issued: May 17, 

(ksued: August’ 22, 1978) 1978) 

No. 31.	 Office Wits to Ophthalmologists: National 

Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, United 

States, 1976 (Issued: Jtdy 14, 1978) 

A complete list of Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics is available from the Scientific and Technical 

Information Branch. 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available 

Category not applicable . . . 

Quantity zero+-------------------------------------------- -

Quantity more than Obut less than 0.05 —-- 0.0 

Figure does not meet standards of * reliabilityy or precision----------–--------–—-

NCHS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EOUCATION, ANO WELFARE POSTAGE ANO FEES PAID Public Haalth Service 

National Cmtar for Health Statistics U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.E.W.


3700 Ent Wait H[ghwav


Hyattwille, Matvland 20782 HEW 396


OFFICIAL BUSINESS FIRST CLASS MAIL PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 

OHEW Publication No. 

(PHSI 781260 

To rmivc this publication regularly, contact 

the National C.nlcr for Health Statistics by 

catling S01-4SS-NCHS.