Dataset Information

Advanced access scheduling outcomes: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Advanced ("open") access scheduling, which promotes patient-driven scheduling in lieu of prearranged appointments, has been proposed as a more patient-centered appointment method and has been widely adopted throughout the United Kingdom, within the US Veterans Health Administration, and among US private practices.To describe patient and physician and/or practice outcomes resulting from implementation of advanced access scheduling in the primary care setting.Comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science) through August, 2010, supplemented by reference lists and gray literature.Studies were assessed in duplicate, and reviewers were blinded to author, journal, and date of publication. Controlled and uncontrolled English-language studies of advanced access implementation in primary care were eligible if they specified methods and reported outcomes data.Two reviewers collaboratively assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Risk of Bias criteria. Data were independently extracted in duplicate.Twenty-eight articles describing 24 studies met eligibility criteria. All studies had at least 1 source of potential bias. All 8 studies evaluating time to third-next-available appointment showed reductions (range of decrease, 1.1-32 days), but only 2 achieved a third-next-available appointment in less than 48 hours (25%). No-show rates improved only in practices with baseline no-show rates higher than 15%. Effects on patient satisfaction were variable. Limited data addressed clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up.Studies of advanced access support benefits to wait time and no-show rate. However, effects on patient satisfaction were mixed, and data about clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up were lacking.

SUBMITTER: Rose KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3154021 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Advanced access scheduling outcomes: a systematic review.

Rose Katherine D KD Ross Joseph S JS Horwitz Leora I LI

Archives of internal medicine 20110425 13

<h4>Background</h4>Advanced ("open") access scheduling, which promotes patient-driven scheduling in lieu of prearranged appointments, has been proposed as a more patient-centered appointment method and has been widely adopted throughout the United Kingdom, within the US Veterans Health Administration, and among US private practices.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe patient and physician and/or practice outcomes resulting from implementation of advanced access scheduling in the primary care setting.< ...[more]

PMID: 21518935

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe goal of advanced access scheduling is to eliminate wait times for physician visits by ensuring access to same-day appointments, regardless of urgency or health care need. The intent is to reduce delays in access, leading to improvements in clinical care and patient satisfaction, and reductions in the use of urgent care.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether implementation of an advanced access scheduling system reduced other types of health service utilization and/or improved clinical measures and patient satisfaction among adults with chronic diseases.Data sources and review methodsA literature search was performed on January 29, 2012, for studies published from 1946 (OVID) or 1980 (EMBASE) to January 29, 2012. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were eligible if they evaluated advanced access implementation in adults with chronic diseases and reported health resource utilization, patient outcomes, or patient satisfaction. Results were summarized descriptively.ResultsOne systematic review in a primary care population and 4 observational studies (5 papers) in chronic disease and/or geriatric populations were identified. The systematic review concluded that advanced access did not improve clinical outcomes, but there was no evidence of harm. Findings from the observational studies in chronic disease populations were consistent with those of the systematic review. Advanced access implementation was not consistently associated with changes in clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, or health service utilization.LimitationsAll studies were retrospective: 3 studies (4 papers) included historical controls only, and 1 included contemporaneous controls. Findings were inconsistent across studies for a number of outcomes.ConclusionsBased on low to very low quality evidence, advanced access did not have a statistically (or clinically) significant impact on health service utilization among patients with diabetes and/or coronary artery disease (CAD). Very low quality evidence showed a significant reduction in the proportion of patients with diabetes and CAD admitted to hospital whose length of stay was greater than 3 days. Evidence was inconsistent for changes in clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes or CAD. Very low quality evidence showed no increase in patient satisfaction with an advanced access scheduling system.

Project description:Socio-economic and geographical inequalities in breast cancer mortality have been widely described in European countries and the United States. To investigate the combined effects of geographic access and socio-economic characteristics on breast cancer outcomes, a systematic review was conducted exploring the relationships between: (i) geographic access to healthcare facilities (oncology services, mammography screening), defined as travel time and/or travel distance; (ii) breast cancer-related outcomes (mammography screening, stage of cancer at diagnosis, type of treatment and rate of mortality); (iii) socioeconomic status (SES) at individuals and residential context levels. In total, n = 25 studies (29 relationships tested) were included in our systematic review. The four main results are: The statistical significance of the relationship between geographic access and breast cancer-related outcomes is heterogeneous: 15 were identified as significant and 14 as non-significant. Women with better geographic access to healthcare facilities had a statistically significant fewer mastectomy (n = 4/6) than women with poorer geographic access. The relationship with the stage of the cancer is more balanced (n = 8/17) and the relationship with cancer screening rate is not observed (n = 1/4). The type of measures of geographic access (distance, time or geographical capacity) does not seem to have any influence on the results. For example, studies which compared two different measures (travel distance and travel time) of geographic access obtained similar results. The relationship between SES characteristics and breast cancer-related outcomes is significant for several variables: at individual level, age and health insurance status; at contextual level, poverty rate and deprivation index. Of the 25 papers included in the review, the large majority (n = 24) tested the independent effect of geographic access. Only one study explored the combined effect of geographic access to breast cancer facilities and SES characteristics by developing stratified models.

Project description:Objectives: The goal of this quantitative research was to evaluate the impact of various factors (e.g., scheduling or radiotherapy (RT) type) on outcomes for RT vs. RT in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), in the treatment of brain metastases, via a meta-analysis. Methods: Clinical studies with at least one ICI+RT treatment combination arm with brain metastasis patients were identified via a systematic literature search. Data on 1-year overall survival (OS), 1-year local control (LC) and radionecrosis rate (RNR) were extracted; for combination studies which included an RT monotherapy arm, odds ratios (OR) for the aforementioned endpoints were additionally calculated and analyzed. Mixed-effects meta-analysis models were tested to evaluate impact on outcome, for different factors such as combination treatment scheduling and the type of ICI or RT used. Results: 40 studies representing a total of 4,359 patients were identified. Higher 1-year OS was observed in ICI and RT combination vs. RT alone, with corresponding incidence rates of 59% [95% CI: 54-63%] vs. 32% [95% CI: 25-39%] (P < 0.001). Concurrent ICI and RT treatment was associated with significantly higher 1-year OS vs. sequential combinations: 68% [95% CI: 60-75%] vs. 54% [95% CI: 47-61%]. No statistically significant differences were observed in 1-year LC and RNR, when comparing combinations vs. RT monotherapies, with 1-year LC rates of 68% [95% CI: 40-90%] vs. 72% [95% CI: 63-80%] (P = 0.73) and RNR rates of 6% [95% CI: 2-13%] vs. 9% [95% CI: 5-14%] (P = 0.37). Conclusions: A comprehensive, study-level meta-analysis of brain metastasis disease treatments suggest that combinations of RT and ICI result in higher OS, yet comparable neurotoxicity profiles vs. RT alone, with a superiority of concurrent vs. sequential combination regimens. A similar meta-analysis using patient-level data from past trials, as well as future prospective randomized trials would help confirming these findings.

Project description:Systematic Reviews (SRs) are an essential part of evidence-based medicine, providing support for clinical practice and policy on a wide range of medical topics. However, producing SRs is resource-intensive, and progress in the research they review leads to SRs becoming outdated, requiring updates. Although the question of how and when to update SRs has been studied, the best method for determining when to update is still unclear, necessitating further research.In this work we study the potential impact of a machine learning-based automated system for providing alerts when new publications become available within an SR topic. Some of these new publications are especially important, as they report findings that are more likely to initiate a review update. To this end, we have designed a classification algorithm to identify articles that are likely to be included in an SR update, along with an annotation scheme designed to identify the most important publications in a topic area. Using an SR database containing over 70,000 articles, we annotated articles from 9 topics that had received an update during the study period. The algorithm was then evaluated in terms of the overall correct and incorrect alert rate for publications meeting the topic inclusion criteria, as well as in terms of its ability to identify important, update-motivating publications in a topic area.Our initial approach, based on our previous work in topic-specific SR publication classification, identifies over 70% of the most important new publications, while maintaining a low overall alert rate.We performed an initial analysis of the opportunities and challenges in aiding the SR update planning process with an informatics-based machine learning approach. Alerts could be a useful tool in the planning, scheduling, and allocation of resources for SR updates, providing an improvement in timeliness and coverage for the large number of medical topics needing SRs. While the performance of this initial method is not perfect, it could be a useful supplement to current approaches to scheduling an SR update. Approaches specifically targeting the types of important publications identified by this work are likely to improve results.

Dataset Information

Advanced access scheduling outcomes: a systematic review.

Publications

Advanced access scheduling outcomes: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets