Distance Matters: Investigating No-Shows in a Large Rural Provider Network.

IF 1.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinical Medicine & Research Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.3121/cmr.2023.1853
Abdul Shour, Adedayo A Onitilo
{"title":"Distance Matters: Investigating No-Shows in a Large Rural Provider Network.","authors":"Abdul Shour, Adedayo A Onitilo","doi":"10.3121/cmr.2023.1853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objective:</b> No-shows have a negative effect on healthcare outcomes. It is unclear, however, whether patients' distance from the clinic is associated with higher no-show rates. To fill this knowledge gap, we examined the relationship between patients' distance from the clinic and no-shows in a rural provider network.<b>Methods:</b> Data from Marshfield Clinic Health System's scheduling system, including 263,464 recent patient appointments in 2021 were analyzed. The outcome was no-shows, defined as when patients missed an appointment (categorized as yes/no). The exposure was the distance to the clinic, measured in miles as a straight-line distance from the clinic in the patient's zip code to the facility where the appointment was held (classified as <5 miles, 5-10, 10-20; >20, and used as continuous). Covariates were patient demographics, appointments, providers, and insurance status. Chi-square and logistic regression were used with p-values ≤.05 considered statistically significant.<b>Results:</b> The no-show rate was 8.0%. Patients who lived <5 miles (8.3%) and >20 miles (8.2%) from the clinic had higher no-show rates than those who lived between 10-20 miles (8.0%) and 5-10 miles (7.6%), at <i>P</i>=0.001. In the adjusted model, the odds of no-show were similar between patients who did not show and those who did (OR:1.00,95%CI:1.00-1.00). No-shows were more likely among male patients compared to females (OR:1.14,95%CI:1.11-1.18), Spanish compared to English speakers (OR:1.34,95%CI:1.20-1.50), prior no-show compared to no prior no-show (OR:4.42,95%CI:4.27-4.48), >4 weeks lead time compared to <1 day (OR:5.45,95%CI:4.98-5.97), and Medicaid compared to non-Medicaid patients (OR:1.56,95%CI:1.49-1.63).<b>Conclusion:</b> Our analysis showed patients who lived <5 miles and >20 miles from the clinic had higher no-show rates. The odds of a no-show were comparable between patients who showed up and those who did not. Male patients, Spanish-speaking patients, patients with a history of no-shows, and Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to miss their appointments. Understanding the impact of these variables on no-show rates can assist healthcare providers in developing strategies to improve patient access and reduce no-show rates. These findings imply that rural patients may face a variety of barriers when seeking healthcare, necessitating a comprehensive approach to addressing this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":47429,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149957/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine & Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2023.1853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objective: No-shows have a negative effect on healthcare outcomes. It is unclear, however, whether patients' distance from the clinic is associated with higher no-show rates. To fill this knowledge gap, we examined the relationship between patients' distance from the clinic and no-shows in a rural provider network.Methods: Data from Marshfield Clinic Health System's scheduling system, including 263,464 recent patient appointments in 2021 were analyzed. The outcome was no-shows, defined as when patients missed an appointment (categorized as yes/no). The exposure was the distance to the clinic, measured in miles as a straight-line distance from the clinic in the patient's zip code to the facility where the appointment was held (classified as <5 miles, 5-10, 10-20; >20, and used as continuous). Covariates were patient demographics, appointments, providers, and insurance status. Chi-square and logistic regression were used with p-values ≤.05 considered statistically significant.Results: The no-show rate was 8.0%. Patients who lived <5 miles (8.3%) and >20 miles (8.2%) from the clinic had higher no-show rates than those who lived between 10-20 miles (8.0%) and 5-10 miles (7.6%), at P=0.001. In the adjusted model, the odds of no-show were similar between patients who did not show and those who did (OR:1.00,95%CI:1.00-1.00). No-shows were more likely among male patients compared to females (OR:1.14,95%CI:1.11-1.18), Spanish compared to English speakers (OR:1.34,95%CI:1.20-1.50), prior no-show compared to no prior no-show (OR:4.42,95%CI:4.27-4.48), >4 weeks lead time compared to <1 day (OR:5.45,95%CI:4.98-5.97), and Medicaid compared to non-Medicaid patients (OR:1.56,95%CI:1.49-1.63).Conclusion: Our analysis showed patients who lived <5 miles and >20 miles from the clinic had higher no-show rates. The odds of a no-show were comparable between patients who showed up and those who did not. Male patients, Spanish-speaking patients, patients with a history of no-shows, and Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to miss their appointments. Understanding the impact of these variables on no-show rates can assist healthcare providers in developing strategies to improve patient access and reduce no-show rates. These findings imply that rural patients may face a variety of barriers when seeking healthcare, necessitating a comprehensive approach to addressing this issue.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
距离很重要:调查一个大型农村医疗服务提供者网络中的无预约情况。
背景/目的:爽约对医疗效果有负面影响。然而,目前还不清楚患者与诊所的距离是否与较高的爽约率有关。为了填补这一知识空白,我们研究了农村医疗机构网络中患者与诊所的距离与爽约率之间的关系:我们分析了来自马什菲尔德诊所医疗系统排班系统的数据,其中包括 2021 年的 263,464 次近期患者预约。结果为未赴约,即患者错过了预约(分为 "是"/"否")。影响因素是到诊所的距离,以患者邮政编码中的诊所到预约地点的直线距离为单位,以英里为计量单位(分类为 20,连续使用)。协变量包括患者人口统计学特征、预约、医疗服务提供者和保险状况。采用卡方检验和逻辑回归,P 值≤.05 为具有统计学意义:未就诊率为 8.0%。与居住在 10-20 英里(8.0%)和 5-10 英里(7.6%)的患者相比,居住在距离诊所 20 英里(8.2%)的患者的缺席率更高,P=0.001。在调整模型中,未就诊患者与就诊患者的未就诊几率相似(OR:1.00,95%CI:1.00-1.00)。男性患者与女性患者相比(OR:1.14,95%CI:1.11-1.18),讲西班牙语的患者与讲英语的患者相比(OR:1.34,95%CI:1.20-1.50),既往未就诊的患者与既往未就诊的患者相比(OR:4.42,95%CI:4.27-4.48),就诊前准备时间大于 4 周的患者与就诊前准备时间小于 4 周的患者相比,未就诊的几率更大:我们的分析表明,居住地距离诊所 20 英里的患者未就诊率较高。未就诊患者和未就诊患者的未就诊几率相当。男性患者、讲西班牙语的患者、有爽约史的患者和医疗补助受益人更容易爽约。了解这些变量对缺席率的影响有助于医疗服务提供者制定策略,改善患者就医情况并降低缺席率。这些研究结果表明,农村患者在寻求医疗保健服务时可能会面临各种障碍,因此有必要采取综合方法来解决这一问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Medicine & Research
Clinical Medicine & Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine & Research is a peer reviewed publication of original scientific medical research that is relevant to a broad audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Articles are published quarterly in the following topics: -Medicine -Clinical Research -Evidence-based Medicine -Preventive Medicine -Translational Medicine -Rural Health -Case Reports -Epidemiology -Basic science -History of Medicine -The Art of Medicine -Non-Clinical Aspects of Medicine & Science
期刊最新文献
Crafting the Future Doctor: Mentorship in the First Year of Medical School. Diagnostic Accuracy of AI Algorithms in Aortic Stenosis Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Extensive Invasive Sinusitis Secondary to Streptococcus Intermedius Infection. Long COVID or Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) in Children and Adolescents. Potential Application of Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide (Anti-CCP) for the Diagnosis of Periodontal Disease in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Cut-Off Determination.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1