The economics of non-attendance and the expected effect of charging a fine on non-attendees

The Effects of Negative Reinforcement on Increasing Patient Adherence to Appointments at King Abdullah University Hospital in Jordan

Appointment nonadherence is a health behavior that represents a burden to health care systems. On March 1, 2015, a new negative reinforcement intervention involving "service fees" for a visit without appointment was implemented at King Abdullah University Hospital in Jordan. To evaluate the effect of this intervention in improving patient adherence to medical appointment, a retrospective preintervention and postintervention analysis was used, including all patients (n = 65 535) who had scheduled appointments at 39 outpatient clinics. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was first performed. Then, a multivariate linear regression model was used to identify factors that might predict individuals who are likely to attend or miss their appointments and those who have a greater tendency to visit the hospital with or without appointments. Although the average percentage of appointments attended was more than missed preintervention and postintervention, the decrease in percentage of missed appointments was more pronounced postintervention. Also, the average percentage of visits without appointments was less than visits with appointments in both times, but the decrease in the percentage of visits without appointments was more prominent after. The regression analysis revealed that younger, married and male patients were more likely to miss their appointment before and after the intervention. Also, younger patients had a tendency to attend without appointments. Conversely, patients with the lower copayment rate had a tendency to adhere to appointment times. In conclusion, negative reinforcement interventions could improve patient appointment adherence rates. Accordingly, interventions designed that consider evidence and are theory-based are needed to change patient behavior.

The effect of fines on nonattendance in public hospital outpatient clinics: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Nonattendance at scheduled appointments in public hospitals presents a challenge for efficient resource use and may ultimately affect health outcomes due to longer waiting times. Seven percent of all scheduled outpatient appointments in the United Kingdom are estimated to be nonattended. Various reminder systems have been shown to moderately reduce nonattendance, although the effect of issuing fines for nonattendance has not yet been tested in a randomized context. However, such use of financial incentives could impact access to care differently across the different socioeconomic groups. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of fines on hospital outpatient nonattendance.

Methods/design

A 1:1 randomized controlled trial of scheduled outpatient appointments was used, with follow-ups until the date of appointment. The setting is an orthopedic clinic at a regional hospital in Denmark. Appointments for users who are scheduled for diagnostics, treatment, surgery, or follow-ups were included from May 2015 to November 2015. Appointments assigned to the intervention arm include an attachment of the appointment letter explaining that a fine will be issued in the case of nonattendance without prior notice. Appointments assigned to the control arm follow usual practice (same system but no letter attachment). The primary outcome is the proportion of nonattendance. Secondary outcomes are proportions of cancellations, sociodemographics, and health-problem characteristics. Furthermore, the intervention costs and production value of nonattended appointments will be measured. An analysis of effect and cost-effectiveness will be conducted based on a 5 % significance level.

Discussion

The study is initiated and funded by the Danish Regions, which have the responsibility for the Danish public healthcare sector. The results are expected to inform future decisions about the introduction of fines for nonattendance at public hospitals.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN61925912. Registered on 6 July 2015.

Factors Associated With Missed and Cancelled Colonoscopy Appointments at Veterans Health Administration Facilities

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Cancelled and missed colonoscopy appointments waste resources, increase colonoscopy delays, and can adversely affect patient outcomes. We examined individual and organizational factors associated with missed and cancelled colonoscopy appointments in Veteran Health Administration facilities.

METHODS

From 69 facilities meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 27,994 patients with colonoscopy appointments scheduled for follow-up, on the basis of positive fecal occult blood test results, between August 16, 2009 and September 30, 2011. We identified factors associated with colonoscopy appointment status (completed, cancelled, or missed) by using hierarchical multinomial regression. Individual factors examined included age, race, sex, marital status, residence, drive time to nearest specialty care facility, limited life expectancy, comorbidities, colonoscopy in the past decade, referring facility type, referral month, and appointment lead time. Organizational factors included facility region, complexity, appointment reminders, scheduling, and prep education practices.

RESULTS

Missed appointments were associated with limited life expectancy (odds ratio [OR], 2.74; P = .0004), no personal history of polyps (OR, 2.74; P < .0001), high facility complexity (OR, 2.69; P = .007), dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse (OR, 1.82; P < .0001), and opt-out scheduling (OR, 1.57; P = .02). Cancelled appointments were associated with age (OR, 1.61; P = .0005 for 85 years or older and OR, 1.44; P < .0001 for 65-84 years old), no history of polyps (OR, 1.51; P < .0001), and opt-out scheduling (OR, 1.26; P = .04). Additional predictors of both outcomes included race, marital status, and lead time.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors within Veterans Health Administration clinic control can be targeted to reduce missed and cancelled colonoscopy appointments. Specifically, developing systems to minimize referrals for patients with limited life expectancy could reduce missed appointments, and use of opt-in scheduling and reductions in appointment lead time could improve both outcomes.

Colposcopy attendance and deprivation: A retrospective analysis of 27,193 women in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme

Background:

Attendance for cervical screening is socially graded, but little is known about patterns of attendance for colposcopy following an abnormal screening result.

Methods:

Logistic regression was used to regress colposcopy attendance status for 27 193 women against age and area-level deprivation, adjusting for ethnicity.

Results:

Colposcopy attendance was high at 8 weeks (89%) and 4 months post-referral (94%) but women living in the most deprived areas were significantly less likely to attend.

Conclusions:

The high overall attendance rates at colposcopy are encouraging but lower attendance among women in the most income-deprived areas indicates that even when these women attend primary cervical screening, they remain at higher risk of missing out on the benefits of the programme.

Missed Appointments: Factors Contributing to High No-Show Rates in an Urban Pediatrics Primary Care Clinic

BACKGROUND

Missed appointments complicate primary care services.

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors associated with missed pediatric appointments.

DESIGN/METHODS

A convenience sample of 1537 patients who missed appointments were called and 386 (25%) families completed the 26-item survey. Those with high no-show rates were compared with the rest using χ(2) and Fisher's exact tests. Initial covariates with P < .2 were included in a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Common reasons for missing appointments were the following: forgot (27%), transportation problems (21%), and time off of work (14%). The high no-show group had more African Americans (P = .030) and older patients (P = .003). Higher no-show rates correlated with well child visits (P = .029) and perception of "excellent health" (P = .022). In the logistic regression model, well child appointments (odds ratio = 2.56) and increasing age in years (odds ratio = 1.11) were associated with higher no-show rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to decrease no-show rates should target older patients and well child visits.

Targeting the Use of Reminders and Notifications for Uptake by Populations (TURNUP): a systematic review and evidence synthesis

Background

Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and a resource inefficiency that impact on the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health-care services are increasingly utilising reminder systems to counter these negative effects.

Objectives

This project explores the differential effect of reminder systems for different segments of the population for improving attendance, cancellation and rescheduling of appointments.

Design

Three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to theoretical explanations for appointment behaviour (review 1), the effectiveness of different approaches to reminding patients to attend health service appointments (review 2) and factors likely to influence non-attendance (review 3).

Data sources

Database searches were conducted on Allied and Complementary Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus with Full Text, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE (via NHS Evidence from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012), Health Management Information Consortium database, Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersXplore, The King’s Fund Library Catalogue, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012. Supplementary screening of references of included studies was conducted to identify additional potentially relevant studies. Conceptual papers were identified for review 1, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for review 2 and a range of quantitative and qualitative research designs for review 3.

Methods

We conducted three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, involving a review of conceptual frameworks of reminder systems and adherence behaviours, a review of the reminder effectiveness literature and a review informed by realist principles to explain the contexts and mechanisms that explain reminder effectiveness. A preliminary conceptual framework was developed to show how reminder systems work, for whom they work and in which circumstances. Six themes emerged that potentially influence the effectiveness of the reminder or whether or not patients would attend their appointment, namely the reminder–patient interaction, reminder accessibility, health-care settings, wider social issues, cancellation and rebookings, and distal/proxy attributes. Standardised review methods were used to investigate the effectiveness of reminders to promote attendance, cancellation or rebooking across all outpatient settings. Finally, a review informed by realist principles was undertaken, using the conceptual framework to explain the context and mechanisms that influence how reminders support attendance, cancellation and rebooking.

Results

A total of 466 papers relating to 463 studies were identified for reviews 2 and 3. Findings from 31 RCTs and 11 separate systematic reviews (review 2 only) revealed that reminder systems are consistently effective at reducing non-attendance at appointments, regardless of health-care setting or patient subgroups. Simple reminders that provide details of timing and location of appointments are effective for increasing attendance at appointments. Reminders that provide additional information over and above the date, time and location of the appointment (‘reminder plus’) may be more effective than simple reminders at reducing non-attendance and may be particularly useful for first appointments and screening appointments; simple reminders may be appropriate thereafter for most patients the majority of the time. There was strong evidence that the timing of reminders, between 1 and 7 days prior to the appointment, has no effect on attendance; substantial numbers of patients do not receive their reminder; reminders promote cancellation of appointments; inadequate structural factors prevent patients from cancelling appointments; and few studies investigated factors that influence the effectiveness of reminder systems for population subgroups.

Limitations

Generally speaking, the systematic review method seeks to provide a precise answer to a tightly focused question, for which there is a high degree of homogeneity within the studies. A wide range of population types, intervention, comparison and outcomes is included within the RCTs we identified. However, use of this wider approach offers greater analytical capability in terms of understanding contextual and mechanistic factors that would not have been evident in a more narrowly focused review and increases confidence that the findings will have relevance in a wide range of service settings.

Conclusions

Simple reminders or ‘reminder plus’ should be sent to all patients in the absence of any clear contraindication. Other reminder alternatives may be relevant for key groups of patients: those from a deprived background, ethnic minorities, substance abusers and those with comorbidities and/or illnesses. We are developing a practice guideline that may help managers to further tailor their reminder systems for their service and client groups. We recommend future research activities in three main areas. First, more studies should routinely consider the potential for differential effects of reminder systems between patient groups in order to identify any inequalities and remedies. Second, ‘reminder plus’ systems appear promising, but there is a need for further research to understand how they influence attendance behaviour. Third, further research is required to identify strategies to ‘optimise’ reminder systems and compare performance with current approaches.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the original Cochrane review published in July 2012. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs for the health system, leading to delays in diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Patients' forgetfulness is one of the main reasons for missed appointments. Patient reminders may help reduce missed appointments. Modes of communicating reminders for appointments to patients include face-to-face communication, postal messages, calls to landlines or mobile phones, and mobile phone messaging. Mobile phone messaging applications, such as Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS), could provide an important, inexpensive delivery medium for reminders for healthcare appointments.

OBJECTIVES

To update our review assessing the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Secondary objectives include assessment of costs; health outcomes; patients' and healthcare providers' evaluation of the intervention and perceptions of safety; and possible harms and adverse effects associated with the intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

Original searches were run in June 2009. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to August 2012), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to August 2012), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (January 1993 to August 2012) and CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (January 1993 to August 2012). We also reviewed grey literature (including trial registers) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing mobile phone messaging as reminders for healthcare appointments. We only included studies in which it was possible to assess effects of mobile phone messaging independent of other technologies or interventions.  

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all studies against the inclusion criteria, with any disagreements resolved by a third review author. Study design features, characteristics of target populations, interventions and controls, and results data were extracted by two review authors and confirmed by a third author. Two authors assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. As the intervention characteristics and outcome measures were similar across included studies, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate an overall effect size.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight randomised controlled trials involving 6615 participants. Four of these studies were newly identified during this update.We found moderate quality evidence from seven studies (5841 participants) that mobile text message reminders improved the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders (risk ratio (RR) 1.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.26)). There was also moderate quality evidence from three studies (2509 participants) that mobile text message reminders had a similar impact to phone call reminders (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.02). Low quality evidence from one study (291 participants) suggests that mobile text message reminders combined with postal reminders improved the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to postal reminders alone (RR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19)). Overall, the attendance to appointment rates were 67.8% for the no reminders group, 78.6% for the mobile phone messaging reminders group and 80.3% for the phone call reminders group. One study reported generally that there were no adverse effects during the study period; none of the studies reported in detail on specific adverse events such as loss of privacy, data misinterpretation, or message delivery failure. Two studies reported that the costs per text message per attendance were respectively 55% and 65% lower than costs per phone call reminder. The studies included in the review did not report on health outcomes or people's perceptions of safety related to receiving reminders by text message.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low to moderate quality evidence included in this review shows that mobile phone text messaging reminders increase attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders, or postal reminders.Text messaging reminders were similar to telephone reminders in terms of their effect on attendance rates, and cost less than telephone reminders. However, the included studies were heterogeneous and the quality of the evidence therein is low to moderate. Further, there is a lack of information about health effects, adverse effects and harms, user evaluation of the intervention and user perceptions of its safety. The current evidence therefore still remains insufficient to conclusively inform policy decisions.There is a need for more high-quality randomised trials of mobile phone messaging reminders, that measure not only patients' attendance rates, but also focus on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Health outcomes, patients' and healthcare providers' evaluation and perceptions of the safety of the interventions, potential harms, and adverse effects of mobile phone messaging reminders should be assessed. Studies should report message content and timing in relation to the appointment.

Factors associated with nonattendance at clinical medicine scheduled outpatient appointments in a university general hospital

INTRODUCTION

Nonattendance at scheduled outpatient appointments for primary care is a major health care problem worldwide. Our aim was to estimate the prevalence of nonattendance at scheduled appointments for outpatients seeking primary care, to identify associated factors and build a model that predicts nonattendance at scheduled appointments.

METHODS

A cohort study of adult patients, who had a scheduled outpatient appointment for primary care, was conducted between January 2010 and July 2011, at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires. We evaluated the history and characteristics of these patients, and their scheduling and attendance at appointments. Patients were divided into two groups: those who attended their scheduled appointments, and those who did not. We estimated the odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and generated a predictive model for nonattendance, with logistic regression, using factors associated with lack of attendance, and those considered clinically relevant. Alternative models were compared using Akaike's Information Criterion. A generation cohort and a validation cohort were assigned randomly.

RESULTS

Of 113,716 appointments included in the study, 25,687 were missed (22.7%; 95% CI: 22.34%-22.83%). We found a statistically significant association between nonattendance and age (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.99-0.99), number of issues in the personal health record (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.98-0.99), time between the request for and date of appointment (OR: 1; 95% CI: 1-1), history of nonattendance (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.07-1.07), appointment scheduled later than 4 pm (OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.24-1.35), and specific days of the week (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 1.06-1.1). The predictive model for nonattendance included characteristics of the patient requesting the appointment, the appointment request, and the actual appointment date. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model in the generation cohort was 0.892 (95% CI: 0.890-0.894).

CONCLUSION

Evidence related to patient characteristics, and the identification of appointments with a higher likelihood of nonattendance, should promote guided strategies to reduce the rate of nonattendance, as well as to future research on this topic. The use of predictive models could further guide management strategies to reduce the rate of nonattendance.

Email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders

BACKGROUND

Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review considers the use of email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and reminders for attendance; particularly scheduling, rescheduling and cancelling healthcare appointments, and providing prompts/reminders for attendance at appointments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of using email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders, compared to other forms of coordinating appointments and reminders, on outcomes for health professionals, patients and carers, and health services, including harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to January 2010), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1967 to January 2010), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1982 to February 2010),and ERIC (CSA) (1965 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists and contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of interventions that use email for scheduling health appointments, for reminders for a scheduled health appointment or for ongoing coordination of health appointments and that took the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. All healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in all settings were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of retrieved citations. No studies were identified for inclusion. Consequently, no data collection or analysis was possible.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria, therefore there are no results to report on the use of email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions on the effects of using email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders could be made and thus no recommendations for practice can be stipulated. Given the significant theoretical opportunities that email presents, there is a need for rigorous studies addressing the review question, but this may involve addressing barriers concerning trial development and implementation.

Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments

BACKGROUND

Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery, with substantial monetary costs for the health system, leading to delays in diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Patients' forgetfulness is one of the main reasons for missed appointments, and reminders may help alleviate this problem. Modes of communicating reminders for appointments to patients include face-to-face communication, postal messages, calls to landlines or mobile phones, and mobile phone messaging. Mobile phone messaging applications such as Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS) could provide an important, inexpensive delivery medium for reminders for healthcare appointments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Secondary objectives include assessment of patients' and healthcare providers' evaluation of the intervention; costs; and possible risks and harms associated with the intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to June 2009), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to June 2009), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (January 1993 to June 2009), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (January 1993 to June 2009), LILACS (January 1993 to June 2009) and African Health Anthology (January 1993 to June 2009). We also reviewed grey literature (including trial registers) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (QRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies with at least three time points before and after the intervention. We included studies assessing mobile phone messaging as reminders for healthcare appointments. We only included studies in which it was possible to assess effects of mobile phone messaging independent of other technologies or interventions.  

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all studies against the inclusion criteria, with any disagreements resolved by a third review author. Study design features, characteristics of target populations, interventions and controls, and results data were extracted by two review authors and confirmed by a third author. Primary outcomes of interest were rate of attendance at healthcare appointments. We also considered health outcomes as a result of the intervention, patients' and providers' evaluation of the intervention, perceptions of safety, costs, and potential harms or adverse effects. As the intervention characteristics and outcome measures were similar across included studies, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate an overall effect size.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials involving 3547 participants. Three studies with moderate quality evidence showed that mobile text message reminders improved the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders (risk ratio (RR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.17)). One low quality study reported that mobile text message reminders with postal reminders, compared to postal reminders, improved rate of attendance at healthcare appointments (RR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19)). However, two studies with moderate quality of evidence showed that mobile phone text message reminders and phone call reminders had a similar impact on healthcare attendance (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.03). The costs per attendance of mobile phone text message reminders were shown to be lower compared to phone call reminders. None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention, nor health outcomes or user perception of safety related to the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that mobile phone text message reminders are more effective than no reminders, and low quality evidence that text message reminders with postal reminders are more effective than postal reminders alone. Further, according to the moderate quality evidence we found, mobile phone text message reminders are as effective as phone call reminders. Overall, there is limited evidence on the effects of mobile phone text message reminders for appointment attendance, and further high-quality research is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Non-attendance to the paediatric clinics in a Malaysian tertiary hospital: a sizeable problem and identification of an efficacious intervention

AIM

To determine the rate, causes and risk factors of non-attendance to the paediatric clinic in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia and to determine the efficacy of one telephone call to confirm a new appointment.

METHODS

For all non-attending patients, during a 2-month period, a pro forma was filled up based on patients' records. During a phone call, additional questions were asked, and a new appointment was offered.

RESULTS

Of 1563 patients who had an appointment, 497 (31.8%) were non-attendees. Weather conditions, the sub-specialty and timing (morning or afternoon) had a significant effect on non-attendance. Forgetfulness was the main cause. Only 160 patients could be successfully contacted. Among the contactable patients, 55 already had an appointment, and 10 had reasons not to get a new appointment. Of the 95 remaining patients, 73 (76.8%) attended the new appointment.

CONCLUSION

The non-attendance rate was high. One telephone call had a reasonable efficacy for the contactable patients, but because a high number of patients were not contactable, overall effectiveness was poor.

A probabilistic model for predicting the probability of no-show in hospital appointments

The number of no-shows has a significant impact on the revenue, cost and resource utilization for almost all healthcare systems. In this study we develop a hybrid probabilistic model based on logistic regression and empirical Bayesian inference to predict the probability of no-shows in real time using both general patient social and demographic information and individual clinical appointments attendance records. The model also considers the effect of appointment date and clinic type. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is validated based on a patient dataset from a VA medical center. Such an accurate prediction model can be used to enable a precise selective overbooking strategy to reduce the negative effect of no-shows and to fill appointment slots while maintaining short wait times.

Nonattendance in pediatric pulmonary clinics: an ambulatory survey

BACKGROUND

Nonattendance for scheduled appointments disturbs the effective management of pediatric pulmonary clinics. We hypothesized that the reasons for non-attendance and the necessary solutions might be different in pediatric pulmonary medicine than in other pediatric fields. We therefore investigated the factors associated with nonattendance this field in order to devise a corrective strategy.

METHODS

The effect of age, gender, ethnic origin, waiting time for an appointment and the timing of appointments during the day on nonattendance proportion were assessed. Chi-square tests were used to analyze statistically significant differences of categorical variables. Logistic regression models were used for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1190 pediatric pulmonology clinic visits in a 21 month period were included in the study. The overall proportion of nonattendance was 30.6%. Nonattendance was 23.8% when there was a short waiting time for an appointment (1-7 days) and 36.3% when there was a long waiting time (8 days and above) (p-value < 0.001). Nonattendance was 28.7% between 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 37.5% after 3 p.m. (p = 0.007). Jewish rural patients had 15.4% nonattendance, Jewish urban patients had 31.2% nonattendance and Bedouin patients had 32.9% nonattendance (p < 0.004). Age and gender were not significantly associated with nonattendance proportions. A multivariate logistic regression model demonstrated that the waiting time for an appointment, time of the day, and the patients' origin was significantly associated with nonattendance.

CONCLUSION

The factors associated with nonattendance in pediatric pulmonary clinics include the length of waiting time for an appointment, the hour of the appointment within the day and the origin of the patient.

Factors associated with non-attendance at pediatric allergy clinics

Non-attendance for scheduled appointments is common in many medical specialties. However, there are no published reports on non-attendance in pediatric allergy clinics. We investigated the factors for non-attendance in pediatric allergy patients. We assessed the effects of age, gender, ethnic origin, waiting time for an appointment and the timing of the appointment on non-attendance proportions. Chi-square tests were used to analyze statistically significant differences of categorical variables. Logistic regression models were used for multivariate analyses. A total of 442 visits in a 21-month period were included in the study. The overall proportion of non-attendance at the pediatric allergy clinic was 33.0%. Jewish rural patients had 19.4% non-attendance; Jewish urban patients had 35.6% non-attendance; and Bedouin patients had 57.1% non-attendance (p < 0.001). Non-attendance was higher in spring and winter (43.5% and 36.7%, respectively) than in summer and autumn (26.9% and 26.5%, respectively) (p = 0.016). Non-attendance was not significantly influenced by gender, age, hour of the appointment or waiting time for the appointment. A multivariate logistic regression model demonstrated that the ethnic origin of the patients and the season of the year were significantly associated with non-attendance. We conclude that in children attending allergy clinics, factors that determine non-attendance include the ethnic origin of the patients and the season of the year.