Email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders

Reducing No-Show Appointments in Preanesthesia Screening

PURPOSE

Preanesthesia screening is critical to evaluate the patient's medical and surgical history before any procedure or surgery to assess for risks and to optimize outcomes during the perioperative period. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to decrease the number of missed appointments in the outpatient preanesthesia and surgical screening clinic and the impact on provider satisfaction.

DESIGN

The design of this quality improvement project was pre and post design. Automated and live phone calls reminders were provided for patients scheduled in the outpatient preanesthesia. Data were collected to compare missed appointment rates from a 3-month period before the project implementation and a 3-month period afterward.

METHODS

Predata collection included the number of no-shows in the electronic health record system from the previous 3 months. Participants included all adult patients who are scheduled for a preanesthesia surgical screening appointment. Provider satisfaction was assessed using a 5-question survey, pre and postinnovation.

FINDINGS

Reminder systems had a statistically significant impact on reducing the number of no-shows in the preanesthesia and surgical screening clinic. No significant impact was shown in provider satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a reminder system can help to reduce no-show rates in clinics. Patient no-shows overload the health system by reducing the productivity of providers and waste resources including use of clinic staff, longer wait times for other patients, and the timing providers put into chart preparation.

Causes of Patient Nonattendance at Medical Appointments: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Approximately one-third of patient appointments in Danish health care result in failures, leading to patient risk and sizable resource waste. Existing interventions to alleviate no-shows often target the patients. The underlying reason behind these interventions is a view that attendance or nonattendance is solely the patient's problem. However, these interventions often prove to be ineffective and can perpetuate social biases and health inequalities, leaving behind patients who are more vulnerable or disadvantaged (in terms of social, economical, and linguistic factors, etc). A more holistic understanding of no-shows is needed to optimize processes, reduce waste, and support patients who are vulnerable.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to gain a deep and more comprehensive understanding of the causes, mechanisms, and recurring patterns and elements contributing to nonattendance at Danish hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark. It emphasizes the patient perspective and analyzes the relational and organizational processes surrounding no-shows in health care. In addition, the study aims to identify effective communicative strategies and organizational processes that can support the development and implementation of successful interventions.

METHODS

The study uses mixed quantitative-qualitative methods, encompassing 4 analytical projects focusing on nonattendance patterns, patient knowledge and behavior, the management of hospital appointments, and in situ communication. To address the complexity of no-shows in health care, the study incorporates various data sources. The quantitative data sources include the electronic patient records, Danish central registries, Danish National Patient Registry, and Register of Medicinal Product Statistics. Baseline characteristics of patients at different levels are compared using chi-square tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The qualitative studies involve observational data, individual semistructured interviews with patients and practitioners, and video recordings of patient consultations.

RESULTS

This paper presents the protocol of the study, which was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation in July 2022. Recruitment started in February 2023. It is anticipated that the quantitative data analysis will be completed by the end of September 2023, with the qualitative investigation starting in October 2023. The first study findings are anticipated to be available by the end of 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing studies of nonattendance in Danish health care are inadequate in addressing relational and organizational factors leading to hospital no-shows. Interventions have had limited effect, highlighting the Danish health care system's failure to accommodate patients who are vulnerable. Effective interventions require a qualitative approach and robust ethnographic data to supplement the description and categorization of no-shows at hospitals. Obtaining comprehensive knowledge about the causes of missed patient appointments will yield practical benefits, enhancing the safety, coherence, and quality of treatment in health care.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/46227.

Information and Communication Technologies in Lung Transplantation: Perception of Patients and Medical Teams

Optimal therapeutic management is a major determinant of patient prognosis and healthcare costs. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) represent an opportunity to enhance therapeutic management in complex chronic diseases, such as lung transplantation (LT). The objective of this study was to assess the preferences of LT patients and healthcare professionals regarding ICTs in LT therapeutic management. A cross-sectional opinion survey was conducted among lung transplant patients and healthcare professionals from the French lung transplantation centers. Five ICTs were defined (SMS, email, phone, internet, and smartphone application) in addition to face-to-face communication. An unsupervised approach by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) identified lung transplant patient profiles according to their preferences for ICTs. Fifty-three lung transplant patients and 15 healthcare professionals of the French LT centers were included. Both expected ICTs for treatment management and communication. Phone call, face-to-face, and emails were the most preferred communication tools for treatment changes and initiation. PCA identified four ICTs-related profiles (“no ICT”, “email”, “SMS”, and “oral communication”). “Email” and “oral communication” profiles are mainly concerned with treatment changes and transmission of new prescriptions. The “SMS” profile expected reminders for healthcare appointments and optimizing therapeutic management. This study provides practical guidance to enhance LT therapeutic management by ICT intervention. The type of ICT used should take into account patient profiles to improve adherence and thereby the prognosis. A combination of strategies including information, education by a multidisciplinary team, and reminders is a promising approach to ensure an optimal management of our patients.

[Experience of tele-expertise in cardiology in Pays de la Loire]

INTRODUCTION

General practitioners regularly need specialized advice for therapeutic adaptation, ECG interpretation or to facilitate referral to the local cardiologist. Tele-expertise could amplify these possibilities of coordination between professionals. An experiment in tele-expertise in cardiology was carried out by the URML in Pays de la Loire between 2016 and 2017. This experiment allowed GPs to seek the advice of a liberal cardiologist via a link card. The cardiologist received the card, accompanied by the ECG and responded within 48 hours.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to study the acceptability of the experiment and to study the impact on the coordination of health care professionals and on delays.

METHOD

This evaluation required a mixed methodology with a before/after the experiment survey, semi-directive interviews with GP and cardiologists, ad hoc data collection and data from national health insurance claim database.

RESULTS

In 15 months of experimentation, 22% of GPs and 52% of liberal cardiologists of the territory participated. 959 reviews were requested by the GPs or 74 cards per month. The cardiologists were solicited 2.3 times a month. The cardiologist rated the ECG abnormal or doubtful for 31.9% of exams. An appointment was scheduled on average within 24 days. Few difficulties in using the service have been reported by users.

DISCUSSION

The results show that tele-expertise without any complex computer tools to work, helps to improve the organization of the gradation of the response of the specialized offer, to improve the confidence of GPs in their own ECG analysis. It constitutes a full-scale observatory of the implementation of tele-expertise in cardiology, upstream of its generalization announced for 2020 in France.

Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use mobile devices to register clients, track their health, and make decisions about care, as well as to communicate with clients and other health workers. An understanding of how health workers relate to, and experience mHealth, can help in its implementation.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise qualitative research evidence on health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services, and to develop hypotheses about why some technologies are more effective than others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in January 2018. We searched Global Health in December 2015. We screened the reference lists of included studies and key references and searched seven sources for grey literature (16 February to 5 March 2018). We re-ran the search strategies in February 2020. We screened these records and any studies that we identified as potentially relevant are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods. We included studies of mHealth programmes that were part of primary healthcare services. These services could be implemented in public or private primary healthcare facilities, community and workplace, or the homes of clients. We included all categories of health workers, as well as those persons who supported the delivery and management of the mHealth programmes. We excluded participants identified as technical staff who developed and maintained the mHealth technology, without otherwise being involved in the programme delivery. We included studies conducted in any country.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria. We found 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria and sampled 43 of these for our analysis. For the 43 sampled studies, we extracted information, such as country, health worker category, and the mHealth technology. We used a thematic analysis process. We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

Most of the 43 included sample studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In many of the studies, the mobile devices had decision support software loaded onto them, which showed the steps the health workers had to follow when they provided health care. Other uses included in-person and/or text message communication, and recording clients' health information. Almost half of the studies looked at health workers' use of mobile devices for mother, child, and newborn health. We have moderate or high confidence in the following findings. mHealth changed how health workers worked with each other: health workers appreciated being more connected to colleagues, and thought that this improved co-ordination and quality of care. However, some described problems when senior colleagues did not respond or responded in anger. Some preferred face-to-face connection with colleagues. Some believed that mHealth improved their reporting, while others compared it to "big brother watching". mHealth changed how health workers delivered care: health workers appreciated how mHealth let them take on new tasks, work flexibly, and reach clients in difficult-to-reach areas. They appreciated mHealth when it improved feedback, speed and workflow, but not when it was slow or time consuming. Some health workers found decision support software useful; others thought it threatened their clinical skills. Most health workers saw mHealth as better than paper, but some preferred paper. Some health workers saw mHealth as creating more work. mHealth led to new forms of engagement and relationships with clients and communities: health workers felt that communicating with clients by mobile phone improved care and their relationships with clients, but felt that some clients needed face-to-face contact. Health workers were aware of the importance of protecting confidential client information when using mobile devices. Some health workers did not mind being contacted by clients outside working hours, while others wanted boundaries. Health workers described how some community members trusted health workers that used mHealth while others were sceptical. Health workers pointed to problems when clients needed to own their own phones. Health workers' use and perceptions of mHealth could be influenced by factors tied to costs, the health worker, the technology, the health system and society, poor network access, and poor access to electricity: some health workers did not mind covering extra costs. Others complained that phone credit was not delivered on time. Health workers who were accustomed to using mobile phones were sometimes more positive towards mHealth. Others with less experience, were sometimes embarrassed about making mistakes in front of clients or worried about job security. Health workers wanted training, technical support, user-friendly devices, and systems that were integrated into existing electronic health systems. The main challenges health workers experienced were poor network connections, access to electricity, and the cost of recharging phones. Other problems included damaged phones. Factors outside the health system also influenced how health workers experienced mHealth, including language, gender, and poverty issues. Health workers felt that their commitment to clients helped them cope with these challenges.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings propose a nuanced view about mHealth programmes. The complexities of healthcare delivery and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how health workers will perceive and experience their use of mHealth. Perceptions reflect the interplay between the technology, contexts, and human attributes. Detailed descriptions of the programme, implementation processes and contexts, alongside effectiveness studies, will help to unravel this interplay to formulate hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of mHealth.

Lay health supporters aided by mobile text messaging to improve adherence, symptoms, and functioning among people with schizophrenia in a resource-poor community in rural China (LEAN): A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a leading cause of disability, and a shift from facility- to community-based care has been proposed to meet the resource challenges of mental healthcare in low- and middle-income countries. We hypothesized that the addition of mobile texting would improve schizophrenia care in a resource-poor community setting compared with a community-based free-medicine program alone.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this 2-arm randomized controlled trial, 278 community-dwelling villagers (patient participants) were randomly selected from people with schizophrenia from 9 townships of Hunan, China, and were randomized 1:1 into 2 groups. The program participants were recruited between May 1, 2015, and August 31, 2015, and the intervention and follow-up took place between December 15, 2015, and July 1, 2016. Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. The patients were on average 46 years of age, had 7 years of education, had a duration of schizophrenia of 18 years with minimal to mild symptoms and nearly one-fifth loss of functioning, and were mostly living with family (95%) and had low incomes. Both the intervention and the control groups received a nationwide community-based mental health program that provided free antipsychotic medications. The patient participants in the intervention group also received LEAN (Lay health supporters, E-platform, Award, and iNtegration), a program that featured recruitment of a lay health supporter and text messages for medication reminders, health education, monitoring of early signs of relapses, and facilitated linkage to primary healthcare. The primary outcome was medication adherence (proportion of dosages taken) assessed by 2 unannounced home-based pill counts 30 days apart at the 6-month endpoint. The secondary and other outcomes included patient symptoms, functioning, relapses, re-hospitalizations, death for any reason, wandering away without notifying anyone, violence against others, damaging goods, and suicide. Intent-to-treat analysis was used. Missing data were handled with multiple imputations. In total, 271 out of 278 patient participants were successfully followed up for outcome assessment. Medication adherence was 0.48 in the control group and 0.61 in the intervention group (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 0.12 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.22]; p = 0.013; effect size 0.38). Among secondary and other outcomes we noted substantial reduction in the risk of relapse (26 [21.7%] of 120 interventional participants versus 40 [34.2%] of 117 controls; relative risk 0.63 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.97]; number needed to treat [NNT] 8.0) and re-hospitalization (9 [7.3%] of 123 interventional participants versus 25 [20.5%] of 122 controls; relative risk 0.36 [95% CI 0.17 to 0.73]; NNT 7.6). The program showed no statistical difference in all other outcomes. During the course of the program, 2 participants in the intervention group and 1 in the control group died. The limitations of the study include its lack of a full economic analysis, lack of individual tailoring of the text messages, the relatively short 6-month follow-up, and the generalizability constraint of the Chinese context.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of texting to patients and their lay health supporters in a resource-poor community setting was more effective than a free-medicine program alone in improving medication adherence and reducing relapses and re-hospitalizations. Future studies may test the effectiveness of customization of the texting to individual patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-ICR-15006053.

Reasons for operation cancellations at a teaching hospital: prioritizing areas of improvement

Purpose

To report rates of and reasons for operation cancellation, and to prioritize areas of improvement.

Methods

Retrospective data were extracted from the monthly reports of cancelled listed operations. Data on 14 theatres were collected by the office of quality assurance at Jordan University Hospital from August 2012 to April 2016. Rates and reasons for operation cancellation were investigated. A Pareto chart was constructed to identify the reasons of highest priority.

Results

During the period of study, 6,431 cases (9.31%) were cancelled out of 69,066 listed cases. Patient no-shows accounted for 62.52% of cancellations. A Pareto analysis showed that around 80% of the known reasons for cancellation after admission were due to a lack of surgical theatre time (30%), incomplete preoperative assessment (21%), upper respiratory tract infection (19%), and high blood pressure (13%).

Conclusion

This study identified the most common reasons for operation cancellation at a teaching hospital. Potential avoidable root causes and recommended interventions were suggested accordingly. Future research, available resources, hospital policies, and strategic measures directed to tackle these reasons should take priority.

Impact of health portal enrolment with email reminders at an academic rheumatology clinic

Missed appointments reduce the quality, safety and efficiency of healthcare delivery. ‘No-Shows’ (NS) have been identified as a problem within the rheumatology clinic at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto, Ontario.

NS were studied through a prospective chart review and telephone interviews. Over 6 months, 110 NS took place (rate 2.5-6.8%). From interviews, 85% of NS were attributed to forgetting, being unaware of the appointment, having the wrong date, or another miscommunication. Fifty-seven percent of patients were interested in an appointment reminder, including electronic reminders (46%).

Patients were encouraged to enroll in the hospital's electronic patient portal, MyChart, and email reminders were implemented at one clinic for portal users. A detailed follow-up card was also given to patients. Process measures included portal enrolment, email reminder receipt, and call volumes. Outcome measures were NS and patient and staff satisfaction.

During the intervention, 120/274 (44%) surveyed patients had MyChart accounts. Of these, 73 (61%) received the e-mail reminder and 72 (99%) found the e-mail helpful. Twenty-two patients knew about their appointment from the e-mail reminder alone. Improvement in attendance was seen after 3.5 months, but it was not sustained thereafter.

Prior to this intervention there was no appointment reminder system at this clinic, and the email reminder demonstrated high patient satisfaction. Low portal enrolment, technical difficulties, and the inability of the intervention to reach new patients were possible reasons why the intervention was unsuccessful at reducing NS.

Effectiveness of an implementation optimisation intervention aimed at increasing parent engagement in HENRY, a childhood obesity prevention programme - the Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Family-based interventions to prevent childhood obesity depend upon parents' taking action to improve diet and other lifestyle behaviours in their families. Programmes that attract and retain high numbers of parents provide an enhanced opportunity to improve public health and are also likely to be more cost-effective than those that do not. We have developed a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement within an existing childhood obesity prevention group programme, HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young). Here, we describe a proposal to evaluate the effectiveness of this optimisation intervention in regard to the engagement of parents and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial is a cluster randomised controlled trial being conducted across 24 local authorities (approximately 144 children's centres) which currently deliver HENRY programmes. The primary outcome will be parental enrolment and attendance at the HENRY programme, assessed using routinely collected process data. Cost-effectiveness will be presented in terms of primary outcomes using acceptability curves and through eliciting the willingness to pay for the optimisation from HENRY commissioners. Secondary outcomes include the longitudinal impact of the optimisation, parent-reported infant intake of fruits and vegetables (as a proxy to compliance) and other parent-reported family habits and lifestyle.

DISCUSSION

This innovative trial will provide evidence on the implementation of a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement in HENRY, a community-based childhood obesity prevention programme. The findings will be generalisable to other interventions delivered to parents in other community-based environments. This research meets the expressed needs of commissioners, children's centres and parents to optimise the potential impact that HENRY has on obesity prevention. A subsequent cluster randomised controlled pilot trial is planned to determine the practicality of undertaking a definitive trial to robustly evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the optimised intervention on childhood obesity prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02675699 . Registered on 4 February 2016.

Email communication in a developing country: different family physician and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Email communication between physicians and patients could improve access to and delivery of health care. Most of the literature studies about email communication between physicians and patients have been conducted in developing countries. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the practices, attitudes, and barriers of both physicians' and patients' use of email within the same health care setting of a developing country.

METHODS

A cross-sectional paper-based survey was conducted among 39 physicians and 500 patients at the Family Medicine clinics of the American University of Beirut, a tertiary academic medical center.

RESULTS

Most of the surveyed patients and physicians reported that they would like to communicate through email and agreed that it is useful. However, only 19% of the patients have ever communicated with their physicians via email, and only 5.1% of physicians have often communicated with their patients via email. Almost half of the patients surveyed were unaware of the possibility of this form of communication, and only 17% reported that their physician offered them his or her email address. In addition, physicians and patients did not agree on the services to be provided by email communication. For instance, almost half of the patients indicated consultation for an urgent medical matter as suitable for email communication.

CONCLUSION

The use of email communication in health care is still scarce. Patients and physicians have different perspectives of its use and importance. Further rigorous research is needed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of this form of communication, especially in the developing world. Interested physicians are encouraged to establish appropriate personal policies for email communication with adequate announcement and patient education plans.

Use of email, cell phone and text message between patients and primary-care physicians: cross-sectional study in a French-speaking part of Switzerland

Background

Physicians’ daily work is increasingly affected by the use of emails, text messages and cell phone calls with their patients. The aim of this study was to describe their use between primary-care physicians and patients in a French-speaking part of Switzerland.

Methods

A cross-sectional mail survey was conducted among all primary-care physicians of Geneva canton (n = 636). The questionnaire focused on the frequency of giving access to, type of use, advantages and disadvantages of email, cell phone calls and text messages communication between physicians and patients.

Results

Six hundred thirty-six questionnaires were mailed, 412 (65 %) were returned and 372 (58 %) could be analysed (37 refusals and three blanks). Seventy-two percent physicians gave their email-address and 74 % their cell phone number to their patients. Emails were used to respond to patients’ questions (82 %) and change appointments (72 %) while cell phone calls and text messages were used to follow patients’ health conditions. Sixty-four percent of those who used email communication never discussed the rules for email exchanges, and 54 % did not address confidentiality issues with their patients. Most commonly identified advantages of emails, cell phone calls and text messages were improved relationship with the patient, saving time (for emails) and improving the follow-up (for cell phone and text messages). The main disadvantages included misuse by the patient, interference with private life and lack of reimbursement.

Conclusions

These tools are widely used by primary-care physicians with their patients. More attention should be paid to confidentiality, documentation and reimbursement when using email communication in order to optimize its use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1776-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Appointment reminder systems are effective but not optimal: results of a systematic review and evidence synthesis employing realist principles

Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and resource inefficiency which impact upon the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health care services are increasingly utilizing reminder systems to manage these negative effects. This study explores the effectiveness of reminder systems for promoting attendance, cancellations, and rescheduling of appointments across all health care settings and for particular patient groups and the contextual factors which indicate that reminders are being employed sub-optimally. We used three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Firstly, using pre-existing models and theories, we developed a conceptual framework to inform our understanding of the contexts and mechanisms which influence reminder effectiveness. Secondly, we performed a review following Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines to investigate the effectiveness of different methods of reminding patients to attend health service appointments. Finally, to supplement the effectiveness information, we completed a review informed by realist principles to identify factors likely to influence non-attendance behaviors and the effectiveness of reminders. We found consistent evidence that all types of reminder systems are effective at improving appointment attendance across a range of health care settings and patient populations. Reminder systems may also increase cancellation and rescheduling of unwanted appointments. "Reminder plus", which provides additional information beyond the reminder function may be more effective than simple reminders (ie, date, time, place) at reducing non-attendance at appointments in particular circumstances. We identified six areas of inefficiency which indicate that reminder systems are being used sub-optimally. Unless otherwise indicated, all patients should receive a reminder to facilitate attendance at their health care appointment. The choice of reminder system should be tailored to the individual service. To optimize appointment and reminder systems, health care services need supportive administrative processes to enhance attendance, cancellation, rescheduling, and re-allocation of appointments to other patients.

'Did not attends' in children 0-10: a scoping review

Patients who do not attend ('DNA') health appointments have been identified as a service problem incurring significant costs to the NHS. In order to explore the causes, effects and costs of child DNAs, we carried out a scoping study to map the literature and identify gaps in the research. Given the breadth of issues underpinning DNAs, a scoping study, including research studies, audits, policy documents and conference abstracts, was the most useful way to map the field. To foster public and patient participation, we sought advice from parents participating in the National Children's Bureau's Family Research Advisory Group. From a pool of 1997 items, we found few UK studies with non-attendance of 0-10 year olds as a primary focus, though many more incidentally reported DNA rates. Overall, four topics predominated: the conceptualization of DNAs; the correlates of non-attendance; initiatives to reduce non-attendance; and the relationship between non-attendance and safeguarding. The Family Research Advisory Group identified broadly similar issues, but with a stronger emphasis on communication and practical matters. While there may be circumstances where failing to attend appointments makes little or no difference to a child (or even benefits them) it is likely that there are children whose health or well-being are compromised as a result of failing to attend appointments. Both 'over' and 'under'-attendance can be a source of anxiety to health professionals. Areas where further work is needed include robust evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and maintenance of measures to reduce DNAs and a better understanding of the relationship of safeguarding to non-attendance.

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.

Tele-nuclear medicine

This article presents a description of tele-nuclear medicine and, after outlining its history, a wide, representative range of its applications. Tele-nuclear medicine has benefited greatly from technological progress, which for several decades has provided greater data transfer rates and storage capacity at steadily decreasing cost. Differences in the practice of nuclear medicine between developed and developing countries arise mainly from disparities in their available infrastructure, funding and education levels of personnel involved. Consequently there are different emphases in their tele-nuclear medicine, which are elaborated. It is concluded that tele-nuclear medicine is important for all countries, but the emphasis on its application may differ between developed and developing nations, with an emphasis on distance learning in the latter.

Utilizing health information technology to improve vaccine communication and coverage

Vaccination coverage is still below the Healthy People 2010 and 2020 goals. Technology use in the US is widespread by patients and providers including text message, email, internet, social media and electronic health records. Health information technology (IT) interventions can facilitate the rapid or real-time identification of children in need of vaccination and provide the foundation for vaccine-oriented parental communication or clinical alerts in a flexible and tailored manner. There has been a small but burgeoning field of work integrating IT into vaccination interventions including reminder/recall using non-traditional methods, clinical decision support for providers in the electronic health record, use of technology to affect work-flow and the use of social media. The aim of this review is to introduce and present current data regarding the effectiveness of a range of technology tools to promote vaccination, describe gaps in the literature and offer insights into future directions for research and intervention.

Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion

BACKGROUND

Email is a popular and commonly used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Its application in health care has included the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review assesses the use of email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion, compared to standard mail or usual care, on outcomes for healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers, and health services, including harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register (January 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (1980 to January 2010), CINAHL (1982 to February 2010), ERIC (1965 to January 2010) and PsycINFO (1967 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, contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies examining interventions where email is used by healthcare professionals to provide information to patients on disease prevention and health promotion, and taking the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. We considered healthcare professionals or associated administrative staff as participants originating the email communication, and patients and caregivers as participants receiving the email communication, in all settings. Email communication was one-way from healthcare professionals or associated administrative staff originating the email communication, to patients or caregivers receiving the email communication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For continuous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as mean differences (MDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs). We conducted a meta-analysis for one primary health service outcome, comparing email communication to standard mail, and report this result as an OR.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomised controlled trials involving 8372 people. All trials were judged to be at high risk of bias for at least one domain. Four trials compared email communication to standard mail and two compared email communication to usual care. For the primary health service outcome of uptake of preventive screening, there was no difference between email and standard mail (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.24). For both comparisons (email versus standard mail and email versus usual care) there was no difference between the groups for patient or caregiver understanding and support. Results were inconclusive for patient or caregiver behaviours and actions. For email versus usual care only, there was no significant difference between groups for the primary outcome of patient health status and well-being. No data were reported relating to healthcare professionals or harms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on the use of email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion was weak, and therefore inadequate to inform clinical practice. The available trials mostly provide inconclusive, or no evidence for the outcomes of interest in this review. Future research needs to use high-quality study designs that take advantage of the most recent developments in information technology, with consideration of the complexity of email as an intervention.

Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals

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 demonstrated in health care this has included its use for communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals for clinical purposes, but the effects of using email in this way is not known.This review addresses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of healthcare professionals and patients using email to communicate with each other, on patient outcomes, health service performance, service efficiency and acceptability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, 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, contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies examining interventions using email to allow patients to communicate clinical concerns to a healthcare professional and receive a reply, and taking 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 authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For continuous measures, we report effect sizes as mean differences (MD). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as odds ratios and rate ratios. Where it was not possible to calculate an effect estimate we report mean values for both intervention and control groups and the total number of participants in each group. Where data are available only as median values it is presented as such. It was not possible to carry out any meta-analysis of the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials enrolling 1733 patients; all trials were judged to be at risk of bias. Seven were randomised controlled trials; two were cluster-randomised controlled designs. Eight examined email as compared to standard methods of communication. One compared email with telephone for the delivery of counselling. When email was compared to standard methods, for the majority of patient/caregiver outcomes it was not possible to adequately assess whether email had any effect. For health service use outcomes it was not possible to adequately assess whether email has any effect on resource use, but some results indicated that an email intervention leads to an increased number of emails and telephone calls being received by healthcare professionals. Three studies reported some type of adverse event but it was not clear if the adverse event had any impact on the health of the patient or the quality of health care. When email counselling was compared to telephone counselling only patient outcomes were measured, and for the majority of measures there was no difference between groups. Where there were differences these showed that telephone counselling leads to greater change in lifestyle modification factors than email counselling. There was one outcome relating to harm, which showed no difference between the email and the telephone counselling groups. There were no primary outcomes relating to healthcare professionals for either comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base was found to be limited with variable results and missing data, and therefore it was not possible to adequately assess the effect of email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals. Recommendations for clinical practice could not be made. Future research should ideally address the issue of missing data and methodological concerns by adhering to published reporting standards. The rapidly changing nature of technology should be taken into account when designing and conducting future studies and barriers to trial development and implementation should also be tackled. Potential outcomes of interest for future research include cost-effectiveness and health service resource use.

Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in healthcare is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included use for clinical communication between healthcare professionals, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review assesses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of healthcare professionals using email to communicate clinical information, on healthcare professional outcomes, patient outcomes, health service performance, and service efficiency and acceptability, when compared to other forms of communicating clinical information.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, 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 (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, contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies examining interventions in which healthcare professionals used email for communicating clinical information, 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 authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies' risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We report all measures as per the study report.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one randomised controlled trial involving 327 patients and 159 healthcare providers at baseline. It compared an email to physicians containing patient-specific osteoporosis risk information and guidelines for evaluation and treatment with usual care (no email). This study was at high risk of bias for the allocation concealment and blinding domains. The email reminder changed health professional actions significantly, with professionals more likely to provide guideline-recommended osteoporosis treatment (bone density measurement and/or osteoporosis medication) when compared with usual care. The evidence for its impact on patient behaviours/actions was inconclusive. One measure found that the electronic medical reminder message impacted patient behaviour positively: patients had a higher calcium intake, and two found no difference between the two groups. The study did not assess primary health service outcomes or harms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As only one study was identified for inclusion, the results are inadequate to inform clinical practice in regard to the use of email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals. Future research needs to use high-quality study designs that take advantage of the most recent developments in information technology, with consideration of the complexity of email as an intervention, and costs.

Email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients

BACKGROUND

As medical care becomes more complex and the ability to test for conditions grows, pressure on healthcare providers to convey increasing volumes of test results to patients is driving investigation of alternative technological solutions for their delivery. This review addresses the use of email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of using email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients, compared to SMS/ text messaging, telephone communication or usual care, on outcomes, including harms, for health professionals, patients and caregivers, and health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, 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 using email for communicating results of any diagnostic medical investigations to patients, and taking 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 communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of included studies, we can draw no conclusions on the effects of using email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients, and thus no recommendations for practice can be stipulated. Further well-designed research should be conducted to inform practice and policy for communicating patient results via email, as this is a developing area.