Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics

Policy-makers' conception of patient non-attendance fees in specialist healthcare: a qualitative document analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patients missing their scheduled appointments in specialist healthcare without giving notice can undermine efficient care delivery. To reduce patient non-attendance and possibly compensate healthcare providers, policy-makers have noted the viability of implementing patient non-attendance fees. However, these fees may be controversial and generate public resistance. Identifying the concepts attributed to non-attendance fees is important to better understand the controversies surrounding the introduction and use of these fees. Patient non-attendance fees in specialist healthcare have been extensively debated in Norway and Denmark, two countries that are fairly similar regarding political culture, population size and healthcare system. However, although Norway has implemented a patient non-attendance fee scheme, Denmark has not. This study aimed to identify and compare how policy-makers in Norway and Denmark have conceptualised patient non-attendance fees over three decades.

DESIGN

A qualitative document study with a multiple-case design.

METHODS

A theory-driven qualitative analysis of policy documents (n=55) was performed.

RESULTS

Although patient non-attendance fees were seen as a measure to reduce non-attendance rates in both countries, the specific conceptualisation of the fees differed. The fees were understood as a monetary disincentive in Norwegian policy documents. In the Danish documents, the fees were framed as an educative measure to foster a sense of social responsibility, as well as serving as a monetary disincentive. The data suggest, however, a recent change in the Danish debate emphasising fees as a disincentive. In both countries, fees were partly justified as a means of compensating providers for the loss of income.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate how, as a regulative policy tool, patient non-attendance fees have been conceptualised and framed differently, even in apparently similar contexts. This suggests that a more nuanced and complex understanding of why such fees are debated is needed.

Behavioural economic interventions to reduce health care appointment non-attendance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Appointment non-attendance - often referred to as "missed appointments", "patient no-show", or "did not attend (DNA)" - causes volatility in health systems around the world. Of the different approaches that can be adopted to reduce patient non-attendance, behavioural economics-oriented mechanisms (i.e., psychological, cognitive, emotional, and social factors that may impact individual decisions) are reasoned to be better suited in such contexts - where the need is to persuade, nudge, and/ or incentivize patients to honour their scheduled appointment. The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and summarize the published evidence on the use and effectiveness of behavioural economic interventions to reduce no-shows for health care appointments.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) for published and grey literature on behavioural economic strategies to reduce no-shows for health care appointments. Eligible studies met four criteria for inclusion; they were (1) available in English, Spanish, or French, (2) assessed behavioural economics interventions, (3) objectively measured a behavioural outcome (as opposed to attitudes or preferences), and (4) used a randomized and controlled or quasi-experimental study design.

RESULTS

Our initial search of the five databases identified 1,225 articles. After screening studies for inclusion criteria and assessing risk of bias, 61 studies were included in our final analysis. Data was extracted using a predefined 19-item extraction matrix. All studies assessed ambulatory or outpatient care services, although a variety of hospital departments or appointment types. The most common behaviour change intervention assessed was the use of reminders (n = 56). Results were mixed regarding the most effective methods of delivering reminders. There is significant evidence supporting the effectiveness of reminders (either by SMS, telephone, or mail) across various settings. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding alternative interventions and efforts to address other heuristics, leaving a majority of behavioural economic approaches unused and unassessed.

CONCLUSION

The studies in our review reflect a lack of diversity in intervention approaches but point to the effectiveness of reminder systems in reducing no-show rates across a variety of medical departments. We recommend future studies to test alternative behavioural economic interventions that have not been used, tested, and/or published before.

Effectiveness and Consequences of Direct Access in Physiotherapy: A Systematic Review

Background. Direct access in physiotherapy (DAPT) occurs when a patient has the ability to self-refer to physical therapy without physician referral. This model of care in musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs) has shown better outcomes than the traditional-based medical model of care that requires physician referral to access physiotherapist services. This traditional physician referral often results in a delay in care. Unfortunately, DAPT is still not permitted in many countries. Objectives. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and the accuracy of DAPT compared to the physician-led model of care for the management of patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The secondary objective of the present study is to define the physiotherapists' characteristics or qualifications involved in DAPT. Materials and methods. Databases searched included: Medline, Scopus and Web of Science. Databases were searched from their inception to July 2022. Research strings were developed according to the PICO model of clinical questions (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). Free terms or synonyms (e.g., physical therapy; primary health care; direct access; musculoskeletal disease; cost-effectiveness) and when possible MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were used and combined with Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT). Risk of bias assessment was carried out through Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB-2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Authors conducted a qualitative analysis of the results through narrative analysis and narrative synthesis. The narrative analysis was provided for an extraction of the key concepts and common meanings of the different studies, while the summary narrative provided a textual combination of data. In addition, a quantitative analysis was conducted comparing the analysis of the mean and differences between the means. Results. Twenty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results show that DAPT had a high referral accuracy and a reduction in the rate of return visits. The medical model had a higher use of imaging, drugs, and referral to another specialist. DAPT was found to be more cost-effective than the medical model. DAPT resulted in better work-related outcomes and was superior when considering patient satisfaction. There were no adverse events noted in any of the studies. In regard to health outcomes, there was no difference between models. ROB-2 shows an intermediate risk of bias risk for the RCTs with an average of 6/9 points for the NOS scale for observational studies. Conclusion. DAPT is a safe, less expensive, reliable triage and management model of care that results in higher levels of satisfaction for patients compared to the traditional medical model. Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022349261.

To charge or not to charge: reducing patient no-show

BACKGROUND

In order to reduce patient no-show, the Israeli government is promoting legislation that will allow Health Plans to require a co-payment from patients when reserving an appointment. It is hoped that this will create an incentive for patients to cancel in advance rather than simply not show up. The goal of this policy is to improve patient access to medical care and ensure that healthcare resources are utilized effectively. We explore this phenomenon to support evidence-based decision making on this issue, and to determine whether the proposed legislation is aligned with the findings of previous studies.

MAIN BODY

No-show rates vary across countries and healthcare services, with several strategies in place to mitigate the phenomenon. There are three key stakeholders involved: (1) patients, (2) medical staff, and (3) insurers/managed care organizations, each of which is affected differently by no-shows and faces a different set of incentives. The decision whether to impose financial penalties for no-shows should take a number of considerations into account, such as the fine amount, service type, the establishment of an effective fine collection system, the patient's socioeconomic status, and the potential for exacerbating disparities in healthcare access. The limited research on the impact of fines on no-show rates has produced mixed results. Further investigation is necessary to understand the influence of fine amounts on no-show rates across various healthcare services. Additionally, it is important to evaluate the implications of this proposed legislation on patient behavior, access to healthcare, and potential disparities in access.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that the proposed legislation will have minimal impact on attendance rates. To achieve meaningful change, efforts should focus on enhancing medical service availability and improving the ease with which appointments can be cancelled or alternatively substantial fines should be imposed. Further research is imperative for determining the most effective way to address the issue of patient no-show and to enhance healthcare system efficiency.

The effect of a mobile health app on adherence to physical health treatment

BACKGROUND

Adhering to prescribed medical interventions predicts the efficacy of the treatment. In the physical health clinics, not adhering to prescribed therapy can take the form of not attending a scheduled clinic visit (no-show appointment) or prematurely terminating treatment against the advice of the provider (self-discharge). A variety of interventions, including mobile phone apps have been introduced with patients to increase their adherence with attending scheduled clinic visits. Limited research has examined the impact of a mobile phone app among patients attending a chiropractic and rehabilitation clinic visits.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare adherence with prescribed physical health treatment among patients attending a chiropractic and rehabilitation clinic who did and did not choose to adopt a phone-based app to complement their treatment.

METHODS

The medical records of new patients who presented for care during 2019 and 2020 at five community-based chiropractic and rehabilitation clinics were reviewed for the number of kept and no-show appointments and if the patient was provider discharged or self-discharged. During this 24-month study 36.3% of the 4,126 patients seen in the targeted clinics had downloaded the Kanvas App to their mobile phone while the remaining patients chose not to download the app (Usual Care Group). The gamification component of the Kanvas App provided the patient with a point every time they attended their visits which could be redeemed for an incentive.

RESULTS

During both 2019 and 2020 respectively the Kanvas App Group were provider discharged at a greater rate than the Usual-Care Group. The Kanvas App Group kept a similar number of appointments compared to the Usual-Care Group in 2019 but kept significantly more appointments than the Usual-Care Group in 2020. During 2019 both groups exhibited a similar number of no-show appointments but in 2020 the Kanvas App Group demonstrated more no-show appointments than the Usual Care Group. When collapsed across years and self-discharged the Kanvas App Group had a greater number of kept appointments compared to the Usual Care Group. When provider discharged, both groups exhibited a similar number of kept appointments. The Kanvas App Group and the Usual Care Group were similar in the number of no-show appointments when provider discharged and when self-discharged the Kanvas App Group had more no-show appointments compared to the Usual Care Group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who did or did not have access to the Kanvas App and were provider discharged, exhibited a similar number of kept appointments and no-show appointments. When subjects were self-discharged and received the Kanvas App they exhibited 3.2 more kept appointments and .94 more no-show appointments than self-discharged Usual Care Group.

Prevalence and factors associated with missed hospital appointments: a retrospective review of multiple clinics at Royal Hospital, Sultanate of Oman

OBJECTIVES

Missed hospital appointments pose a major challenge for healthcare systems. There is a lack of information about drivers of missed hospital appointments in non-Western countries and extent of variability between different types of clinics. The aim was to evaluate the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointments and variability in drivers between multiple outpatient clinics.

SETTING

Outpatient clinics in the Royal hospital (tertiary referral hospital in Oman) between 2014 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with a scheduled outpatient clinic appointment (N=7 69 118).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A missed appointment was defined as a patient who did not show up for the scheduled hospital appointment without notifying or asking for the appointment to be cancelled or rescheduled. The outcomes were the rate and predictors of missed hospital appointments overall and variations by clinic. Conditional logistic regression compared patients who attended and those who missed their appointment.

RESULTS

The overall rate of missed hospital appointments was 22.3%, which varied between clinics (14.0% for Oncology and 30.3% for Urology). Important predictors were age, sex, service costs, patient's residence distance from hospital, waiting time and appointment day and season. Substantive variability between clinics in ORs for a missed appointment was present for predictors such as service costs and waiting time. Patients aged 81-90 in the Diabetes and Endocrine clinic had an adjusted OR of 0.53 for missed appointments (95% CI 0.37 to 0.74) while those in Obstetrics and Gynaecology had OR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.59). Adjusted ORs for longer waiting times (>120 days) were 2.22 (95% CI 2.10 to 2.34) in Urology but 1.26 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.36) in Oncology.

CONCLUSION

Predictors of a missed appointment varied between clinics in their effects. Interventions to reduce the rate of missed appointments should consider these factors and be tailored to clinic.

Preserving equipoise and performing randomised trials for COVID-19 social distancing interventions

In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a large number of non-pharmaceutical measures that pertain to the wider group of social distancing interventions (e.g. public gathering bans, closures of schools, workplaces and all but essential business, mandatory stay-at-home policies, travel restrictions, border closures and others) have been deployed. Their urgent deployment was defended with modelling and observational data of spurious credibility. There is major debate on whether these measures are effective and there is also uncertainty about the magnitude of the harms that these measures might induce. Given that there is equipoise for how, when and if specific social distancing interventions for COVID-19 should be applied and removed/modified during reopening, we argue that informative randomised-controlled trials are needed. Only a few such randomised trials have already been conducted, but the ones done to-date demonstrate that a randomised trials agenda is feasible. We discuss here issues of study design choice, selection of comparators (intervention and controls), choice of outcomes and additional considerations for the conduct of such trials. We also discuss and refute common counter-arguments against the conduct of such trials.

Implementation of an ICU Recovery Clinic at a Tertiary Care Academic Center

Post-ICU clinics may facilitate the care of survivors of critical illness, but there is a paucity of data describing post-ICU clinic implementation. We sought to describe implementation of our ICU recovery clinic, including an assessment of barriers and facilitators to clinic attendance.

DESIGN

Adults admitted to the medical ICU of a large tertiary care academic hospital with shock and/or respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation were screened for participation in a newly formed ICU recovery clinic. Participant selection and attendance rates were tracked. Reasons for nonattendance were assessed by phone call in a subset of patients.

SETTING

A newly formed ICU recovery clinic of a large tertiary care academic hospital.

PATIENTS

All patients admitted to the medical ICU were screened.

INTERVENTIONS

ICU recovery clinic appointments were scheduled for all eligible patients. A subset of nonattenders were called to assess reasons for nonattendance.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Over 2 years, we admitted 5,510 patients to our medical ICU. Three hundred sixty-two were screened into the recovery clinic. One-hundred sixty-six were not scheduled for clinic; major reasons included discharge to hospice/death in the hospital (n = 55) and discharge to a facility (n = 50). One-hundred ninety-six patients were scheduled for a visit and of those, 101 (52%) arrived to clinic. Reasons for nonattendance in a surveyed subset of nonattenders included patient's lack of awareness of the appointment (50%, n = 9/18), financial concerns (17%, n = 3/18), and transportation difficulty (17%, n = 3/18).

CONCLUSIONS

ICU recovery clinics may address the needs of survivors of critical illness. Barriers to clinic attendance include high mortality rates, high rates of clinic appointment cancelations and nonattendance, and discharge to locations such as skilled nursing facilities or long-term acute care hospitals. Improved communication to patients about the role of the clinic may facilitate attendance and minimize canceled appointments.

Clinic Nonattendance Is a Risk Factor for Poor Kidney Transplant Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of clinic nonattendance within the first year after kidney transplantation on graft-related outcomes.

METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included all patients receiving their transplant (2007-2017) and receiving their long-term follow up at our center. Clinic nonattendance was extracted from electronic patient records and informatics systems, with highest clinic nonattenders stratified at the 75th percentile.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed for 916 kidney allograft recipients, with median follow up 1168 days (interquartile range, 455-2073 days). Median number of missed transplant clinic visits in the first year was 5 (interquartile range, 3-7) and nonattenders were defined above the 75th percentile. Nonattenders versus attenders were more likely to be black, ABO-incompatible, repeat kidney transplant recipients but less likely to have pretransplantation diabetes. Nonattenders versus attenders had longer hospital stays after their transplant surgery in days (14.4 vs 12.2 respectively, P = 0.007), higher rate of delayed graft function (21.3% vs 12.8% respectively, P = 0.005), higher risk for 1-year rejection (12.5% vs 7.8% respectively, P = 0.044), worse 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate in mL/min (47.0 vs 54.1, respectively, P = 0.002) and increased risk for death-censored graft loss by median follow (17.5% vs 12.0%, respectively, P = 0.013). In a Cox regression model, kidney transplant recipients defined as clinic nonattenders within the first postoperative year demonstrated a significantly increased rate of death-censored graft loss (hazard ratio, 1.983; 95% confidence interval, 1.061-3.707; P = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney transplant recipients in the top quartile for nonattendance require additional support and supervision to help attenuate long-term risks to their graft function and survival.