Kyla L Bauer1, Omolade O Sogade1, Brian F Gage2, Brent Ruoff3, Lawrence Lewis3. 1. From the, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. General Medical Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. and the, Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automated phone appointment reminders have improved adherence with follow-up appointments in a variety of hospital settings, but have mixed results in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). Increasing adherence to follow-up care has been a priority in the ED to improve patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary future visits. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized open, blinded end-point (PROBE) trial of 278 adult patients discharged from the ED and referred to a provider for follow-up care. Participants in the intervention arm received a self-scheduling text or phone message that automatically connected them to their referral provider to schedule a follow-up appointment and sent them appointment reminders. Those in the control arm received standard-of-care written instructions to contact listed referral providers. The primary outcome was time to appointment. The secondary outcome was time to return visit to the ED. RESULTS: The automated reminders increased the cumulative incidence of keeping the referral appointment after ED discharge (p < 0.001, Gray's test). Of participants randomized to the automated phone intervention, 49.3% (n = 74) kept their follow-up appointment versus 23.4% (n = 30) in the control arm, with a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) over the duration of the study period of 2.4 (1.6 to 3.7; p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis using 30 days of follow-up data, 42.0% (n = 63) of participants randomized to the phone intervention kept their follow-up versus 21.1% (n = 27) in the control arm, with a HR (95% CI) of 2.2 (1.4 to 3.5; p < 0.001). There was no difference in ED revisits between the intervention and control group within 120 days postdischarge. CONCLUSIONS: An automated self-scheduling phone system significantly improved follow-up adherence after ED discharge, but did not decrease ED revisits.
BACKGROUND: Automated phone appointment reminders have improved adherence with follow-up appointments in a variety of hospital settings, but have mixed results in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). Increasing adherence to follow-up care has been a priority in the ED to improve patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary future visits. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized open, blinded end-point (PROBE) trial of 278 adult patients discharged from the ED and referred to a provider for follow-up care. Participants in the intervention arm received a self-scheduling text or phone message that automatically connected them to their referral provider to schedule a follow-up appointment and sent them appointment reminders. Those in the control arm received standard-of-care written instructions to contact listed referral providers. The primary outcome was time to appointment. The secondary outcome was time to return visit to the ED. RESULTS: The automated reminders increased the cumulative incidence of keeping the referral appointment after ED discharge (p < 0.001, Gray's test). Of participants randomized to the automated phone intervention, 49.3% (n = 74) kept their follow-up appointment versus 23.4% (n = 30) in the control arm, with a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) over the duration of the study period of 2.4 (1.6 to 3.7; p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis using 30 days of follow-up data, 42.0% (n = 63) of participants randomized to the phone intervention kept their follow-up versus 21.1% (n = 27) in the control arm, with a HR (95% CI) of 2.2 (1.4 to 3.5; p < 0.001). There was no difference in ED revisits between the intervention and control group within 120 days postdischarge. CONCLUSIONS: An automated self-scheduling phone system significantly improved follow-up adherence after ED discharge, but did not decrease ED revisits.
Authors: Sarah McCue Horwitz; Susan H Busch; Kathleen M B Balestracci; Katherine D Ellingson; James Rawlings Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Sanjay Arora; Elizabeth Burner; Sophie Terp; Chun Nok Lam; Aren Nercisian; Vivek Bhatt; Michael Menchine Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Melissa Lee McCarthy; Jon Mark Hirshon; Rebecca L Ruggles; Anne Boland Docimo; Melvin Welinsky; Edward S Bessman Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Michael H Andreae; Robert S White; Kelly Yan Chen; Singh Nair; Charles Hall; Naum Shaparin Journal: Pain Med Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Gwen C Jacobsohn; Courtney M C Jones; Rebecca K Green; Amy L Cochran; Thomas V Caprio; Jeremy T Cushman; Amy J H Kind; Michael Lohmeier; Ranran Mi; Manish N Shah Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 3.451