Targeted Reminder Phone Calls to Patients at High Risk of No-Show for Primary Care Appointment: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No-shows, or missed appointments, are a problem for many medical practices. They result in fragmented care and reduce access for all patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether telephone reminder calls targeted to patients at high risk of no-show can reduce no-show rates. DESIGN: Single-center randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2247 primary care patients in a hospital-based primary care clinic at high risk of no-show (>15 % risk) for their appointment in 7 days. INTERVENTION: Seven days prior to their appointment, intervention arm patients were placed in a calling queue to receive a reminder phone call from a patient service coordinator. Coordinators were trained to engage patients in concrete planning. All patients received an automated phone call (usual care). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was no-show rate. Secondary outcomes included arrival rate, cancellation rate, reschedule rate, time to cancellation, and change in revenue. KEY RESULTS: The no-show rate in the intervention arm (22.8 %) was significantly lower (absolute risk difference -6.4 %, p < 0.01, 95 % CI [-9.8 to -3.0 %]) than that in the control arm (29.2 %). Arrival, cancellation, and reschedule rates did not differ significantly. In the intervention arm, rescheduling and cancellations occurred further in advance of the appointment (mean difference, 0.35 days; 95 % CI [0.07-0.64]; p = 0.01). Reimbursement did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: A phone call 7 days prior to an appointment led to a significant reduction in no-shows and increased reimbursement among patients at high risk of no-show. The use of targeted interventions may be of interest to practices taking on increased accountability for population health.

Longer-term impact of cardiology e-consults.

AIMS: Cardiac e-consults may be an effective way to deliver value-oriented outpatient cardiology care in an accountable care organization. Initial results of cardiac e-consults have demonstrated high satisfaction among both patients and referring providers, no known adverse events, and low rates of diagnostic testing. Nevertheless, differences between e-consults and traditional consults, effects of e-consults on traditional consult volume, and whether patients seek traditional consults after e-consults are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We established a cardiac e-consult program on January 13, 2014. We then conducted detailed medical record reviews of all patients with e-consults to detect any adverse clinical events and detect subsequent traditional visits to cardiologists. We also performed 2 comparisons. First, we compared age, gender, and referral reason for e-consults vs traditional consults. Second, we compared changes in volume of referrals to cardiology vs other medical specialties that did not have e-consults. From January 13 to December 31, 2014, 1,642 traditional referrals and 165 e-consults were requested. The proportion of e-consults of all evaluations requested over that period was 9.1%. Gender balance was similar among traditional consults and e-consults (44.8% male for e-consults vs 45.0% for traditional consults, P = .981). E-consult patients were younger than traditional consult patients (55.3 vs 60.4 years, P < .001). After the introduction of cardiac e-consults, the increase in traditional cardiac visit requests was less than the increase in traditional visit requests for control specialties (4.5% vs 10.1%, P < .001). For e-consults with at least 6 months of follow-up, 75.6% patients did not have any type of traditional cardiology visit during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: E-consults are an effective and safe mechanism to enhance value in outpatient cardiology care, with low rates of bounceback to traditional consults. E-consults can account for nearly one-tenth of total outpatient consultation volume at 1 year within an accountable care organization and are associated with a reduction in traditional referrals to cardiologists.