| Literature DB >> 25600414 |
Guy Paré1, Marie-Claude Trudel, Pascal Forget.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Managing appointments in private medical practices and ambulatory care settings is a complex process. Various strategies to reduce missed appointments can be implemented. E-booking systems, which allow patients to schedule and manage medical appointments online, represents such a strategy. To better support clinicians seeking to offer an e-booking service to their patients, health authorities in Canada recently invested in a showcase project involving six private medical clinics.Entities:
Keywords: e-booking; medical practices; missed appointments; mixed-methods evaluative study; primary care
Year: 2014 PMID: 25600414 PMCID: PMC4288107 DOI: 10.2196/medinform.3669
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Med Inform
Profile of the medical practices.
| Medical practice | Health care services offered | Clients |
| A | Family medicine with two specialists on-site | Adults and children |
| B | Family medicine, travel health, specimen collection center, operating rooms | Adults and children |
| C | Transrectal echography with or without biopsy, cystoscopy, vasectomy, uroflowmetry, minor surgery, urology research | Elderly clients / primarily men |
| D | Medical consultation with or without an appointment, emergency and minor surgery, specimen collection service for laboratory testing, mother-child clinic, vaccination | Young families / expectant women or mothers with babies |
| E | General medicine | Ubisoft employees (young computer-savvy people) |
| F | Multidisciplinary health services | Mostly adults or elderly people |
Figure 1Number of new patients enrolled, by medical practice.
Figure 2Number of medical appointments booked online in 2012 and 2013, by clinic.
Profile of survey respondents (n=304).
|
| Patients who booked online at least once | Patients yet to book online | χ2 and |
| |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| Men | 109 (45.2) | 22 (34.9) | χ2=1.7 | .197 |
| Women | 131 (55.4) | 39 (61.9) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 18–29 | 21 (8.7) | 8 (12.7) | χ2=1.3 | .933 |
| 30–39 | 60 (24.9) | 13 (20.6) | |||
| 40–49 | 29 (12.0) | 8 (12.7) | |||
| 50–59 | 66 (27.4) | 18 (28.6) | |||
| 60–69 | 46 (19.1) | 11 (17.5) | |||
| 70+ | 19 (7.8) | 5 (7.9) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| None | 4 (1.7) | 0 (0.0) | χ2=6.3 | .279 |
| High school diploma | 44 (18.3) | 10 (15.9) | |||
| College diploma | 54 (22.4) | 16 (25.4) | |||
| Bachelor degree | 73 (30.2) | 26 (41.3) | |||
| Master’s degree | 53 (22.0) | 7 (11.1) | |||
| PhD | 12 (5.0) | 3 (4.8) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| A | 18 (7.5) | 6 (9.5) | χ2=55.1 | .000 |
| B | 70 (29.0) | 39 (61.9) | |||
| C | 77 (32.0) | 2 (3.2) | |||
| D | 57 (23.7) | 7 (11.1) | |||
| E | 13 (5.4) | 6 (9.5) | |||
| F | 6 (2.5) | 3 (4.8) | |||
|
| 4.5 | 4.2 |
| .022 | |
aScale of 1 to 5 where 1=slightly familiar and 5=very familiar.
Descriptive statistics and variance shared by the variables.
|
| Mean | SD | Number of items | Cronbach alpha | PU | EOU | CONF | SAT | CONT |
| Perceived usefulness of the system (PU) | 4.2 | 0.9 | 4 | .86 | .85 a |
|
|
|
|
| User-friendliness of the system (EOU) | 4.3 | 0.8 | 4 | .93 | .68b | .91 |
|
|
|
| Confirmation of expectations (CONF) | 4.0 | 1.0 | 3 | .87 | .82b | .68b | .89 |
|
|
| Satisfaction with the system (SAT) | 4.2 | 0.9 | 4 | .80 | .72b | .58b | .73b | .82 |
|
| Intention to continue using the system (CONT) | 4.5 | 0.8 | 3 | .93 | .81b | .62b | .76b | .72b | .94 |
aThe ratios on the diagonal represent the square root of the variance shared by each variable and its respective items. The ratios below the diagonal are correlations between variables.
b P<.001.
Figure 3Research model and PLS results (n=241). ***P<.005; **P<.01; *P<.05; ns=not significant.
Promotional strategies put in place and patients’ receptiveness (n=304).
| Promotional strategy | Clinic A | Clinic B | Clinic C | Clinic D | Clinic E | Clinic F | Patients who were influenced, |
| Secretary’s verbal recommendation | √a | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 158 (52.0) |
| Physician’s verbal recommendation | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 62 (20.3) |
| Promotional message on the clinic’s voicemail | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 49 (16.1) |
| Link on the medical clinic’s website |
| √ | √ | √ |
| X | 45 (14.8) |
| Flyer distributed at the medical clinic | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 21 (6.9) |
| Promotional poster in the medical clinic | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 17 (5.6) |
| Interactive terminals available in the clinic (iPads) | Xb |
| X | √ |
| X | - |
| Email invitation to all patients |
|
|
|
| √ | √ | N/Ac |
a√ = Strategy implemented before the survey conducted in the spring of 2013.
bX=Strategy implemented after the survey conducted in the spring of 2013.
cN/A=Data not available in the survey questionnaire.
Figure 4Proportion of missed appointments at medical practice A.
Perceived benefits of using the e-booking system (n=241).
|
| Average | SD | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Makes it possible to book appointments when it is most convenient. | 4.7 | 1.0 |
| Greater flexibility in the choice of available time slots. | 4.6 | 1.2 | |
|
| |||
|
| Saves time by eliminating waiting on the phone. | 4.5 | 1.0 |
| Saves time by eliminating the need for reminders several times at the clinic when the phone is busy. | 4.5 | 1.2 | |
| Saves time by eliminating the need for me to go in person to the clinic to schedule an appointment. | 4.5 | 1.2 | |
|
| |||
|
| Makes it easier to remember appointments thanks to reminders. | 4.5 | 1.0 |