INTRODUCTION: Non-attendance is a global health-care problem. The aim of the present study was 1) to investigate if a telephone reminder could reduce the non-attendance rate, 2) to study reasons for non-attendance and 3) to evaluate if a permanent implementation would be economically advantageous in a gastroenterology outpatient clinic like ours. METHODS: This was a comparative intervention study with a historical control group in a gastroenterology outpatient clinic. The study lasted six months. Patients with a scheduled appointment in the first three-month period received no reminder (control group, n = 2,705). Patients in the following three-month period were reminded by telephone one weekday in advance of their appointment, when possible (intervention group, n = 2,479). Non-attending patients in the intervention group received a questionnaire. Based on the results, a financial cost-benefit analysis was made. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 1,577 (64%) patients answered the reminder telephone call. The non-attendance rate was significantly lower in the intervention group (6.1%) than in the control group (10.5%) (p < 0.00001). Only 1.3% of the patients who answered the reminder turned out to be non-attendees. The most common explanation for non-attendance in the intervention group was forgetfulness (39%). The reminder telephone call was cost-effective. CONCLUSION: In this outpatient clinic, telephone reminders were cost-effective and significantly reduced the non-attendance rate by 43%.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Non-attendance is a global health-care problem. The aim of the present study was 1) to investigate if a telephone reminder could reduce the non-attendance rate, 2) to study reasons for non-attendance and 3) to evaluate if a permanent implementation would be economically advantageous in a gastroenterology outpatient clinic like ours. METHODS: This was a comparative intervention study with a historical control group in a gastroenterology outpatient clinic. The study lasted six months. Patients with a scheduled appointment in the first three-month period received no reminder (control group, n = 2,705). Patients in the following three-month period were reminded by telephone one weekday in advance of their appointment, when possible (intervention group, n = 2,479). Non-attending patients in the intervention group received a questionnaire. Based on the results, a financial cost-benefit analysis was made. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 1,577 (64%) patients answered the reminder telephone call. The non-attendance rate was significantly lower in the intervention group (6.1%) than in the control group (10.5%) (p < 0.00001). Only 1.3% of the patients who answered the reminder turned out to be non-attendees. The most common explanation for non-attendance in the intervention group was forgetfulness (39%). The reminder telephone call was cost-effective. CONCLUSION: In this outpatient clinic, telephone reminders were cost-effective and significantly reduced the non-attendance rate by 43%.
Authors: Rebecca Penzias; Virginia Sanabia; Kyra M Shreeve; Urmi Bhaumik; Caitlin Lenz; Elizabeth R Woods; Sara F Forman Journal: Pediatr Qual Saf Date: 2019-07-29