Do Automated Reminders Decrease No-Show Visits in an Outpatient Palliative Medicine Clinic?

IF 1.4 The American journal of hospice & palliative care Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-23 DOI:10.1177/10499091251329924
Ruth L Lagman, Renato V Samala, Ahed Makhoul, Kyle Neale, Chirag Patel, Elizabeth Weinstein, Wei Wei, Xiaoying Chen
{"title":"Do Automated Reminders Decrease No-Show Visits in an Outpatient Palliative Medicine Clinic?","authors":"Ruth L Lagman, Renato V Samala, Ahed Makhoul, Kyle Neale, Chirag Patel, Elizabeth Weinstein, Wei Wei, Xiaoying Chen","doi":"10.1177/10499091251329924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundIndividuals who do not show up for medical appointments can lead to unfavorable outcomes for both patients and health systems. Automated methods are available to confirm appointments in addition to patient service coordinator (PSC) telephone calls. This study aims to determine the no-show rates for automated methods of confirmation, in-person and virtual visits, and patients living in underserved areas.MethodsData was gathered retrospectively through electronic medical record review. Completed, canceled and no-show visits for in-person and virtual (telehealth) visits from January to June 2023 were collected along with automated and PSC reminders, and whether patients resided within community outreach zones (COZ), areas of healthcare underutilization.ResultsOf 8054 scheduled appointments with 2161 unique patients, there were 4563 (57%) completed, 3036 (38%) canceled, and 455 (6%) no-shows. Overall no-show rate was 6% (CI: 5%-6%). No-show rate for in-person visits was 5% (CI: 4%-6%); 9% (CI: 8%-11%) for virtual visits. Patients who confirmed by PSC telephone call had a significantly higher chance of no-show compared to those who did not confirm by other means (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.23-2.01; <i>P</i> = 0.0003). Patients living within COZ had a significantly higher chance of no-show compared to patients living outside (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.51-2.34; <i>P</i> < 0.0001). For virtual appointments, patients living within COZ had a significantly higher chance of no-show compared to patients living outside (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.11-2.46; <i>P</i> = 0.0141).ConclusionPSC telephone calls, individuals living within COZ and virtual visits had higher no-show rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":94222,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","volume":" ","pages":"188-192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091251329924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundIndividuals who do not show up for medical appointments can lead to unfavorable outcomes for both patients and health systems. Automated methods are available to confirm appointments in addition to patient service coordinator (PSC) telephone calls. This study aims to determine the no-show rates for automated methods of confirmation, in-person and virtual visits, and patients living in underserved areas.MethodsData was gathered retrospectively through electronic medical record review. Completed, canceled and no-show visits for in-person and virtual (telehealth) visits from January to June 2023 were collected along with automated and PSC reminders, and whether patients resided within community outreach zones (COZ), areas of healthcare underutilization.ResultsOf 8054 scheduled appointments with 2161 unique patients, there were 4563 (57%) completed, 3036 (38%) canceled, and 455 (6%) no-shows. Overall no-show rate was 6% (CI: 5%-6%). No-show rate for in-person visits was 5% (CI: 4%-6%); 9% (CI: 8%-11%) for virtual visits. Patients who confirmed by PSC telephone call had a significantly higher chance of no-show compared to those who did not confirm by other means (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.23-2.01; P = 0.0003). Patients living within COZ had a significantly higher chance of no-show compared to patients living outside (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.51-2.34; P < 0.0001). For virtual appointments, patients living within COZ had a significantly higher chance of no-show compared to patients living outside (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.11-2.46; P = 0.0141).ConclusionPSC telephone calls, individuals living within COZ and virtual visits had higher no-show rates.

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
自动提醒是否能减少姑息治疗门诊的失诊率?
背景不赴约就医的人可能会给患者和医疗系统带来不利的结果。除了患者服务协调员(PSC)的电话之外,还有一些自动方法可以确认预约。本研究旨在确定自动确认方法、亲自就诊和虚拟就诊的缺席率,以及居住在服务不足地区的患者的缺席率。收集了 2023 年 1 月至 6 月期间亲诊和虚拟(远程医疗)就诊的完成、取消和缺席情况,同时还收集了自动提醒和 PSC 提醒,以及患者是否居住在社区外展区 (COZ),即医疗服务利用率不足的地区。结果 在 8054 次预约中,共有 2161 名患者,其中 4563 次(57%)完成,3036 次(38%)取消,455 次(6%)缺席。总缺席率为 6%(CI:5%-6%)。亲自就诊的缺席率为 5%(CI:4%-6%);虚拟就诊的缺席率为 9%(CI:8%-11%)。与未通过其他方式确认的患者相比,通过 PSC 电话确认的患者出现缺席的几率明显更高(OR 1.57;95% CI 1.23-2.01;P = 0.0003)。与居住在 COZ 外的患者相比,居住在 COZ 内的患者出现缺席的几率明显更高(OR 1.88;95% CI 1.51-2.34;P < 0.0001)。对于虚拟预约,与居住在 COZ 外的患者相比,居住在 COZ 内的患者缺席的几率明显更高(OR 1.65;95% CI 1.11-2.46;P = 0.0141)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Role of Language in Spiritual Health Consultations: Insights From an Ecological Model of Recovery on Depression and Anxiety. The Analysis of Hospice Trends in the United States in 2020 Among Medicare Beneficiaries. You've Got A Friendtor in Me: Innovations in Peer Mentoring for Mid-Career Palliative Care Clinicians. Consistent, Concise and Meaningful: Clinician Perceptions of a Novel Dyspnea Assessment Tool. Implementation of a Goals-of-Care Communication Priming Intervention Tailored to Outpatient Stroke Survivors: A Pilot Study.
×
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:604180095
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