Dataset Information

The Relationship Between Follow-up Appointments and Access to Primary Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care operations managers need to balance scheduling frequent follow-ups for patients with chronic conditions and fitting in patients requiring care for new complaints.

Objective

We quantify how frequency of follow-up visits corresponds with access to care for patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Design

We use patient data collected between October 2013 and June 2016 by the Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP). Our sample is comprised of 94,496 patients. We estimate logistic models with 1-month lagged facility-level predictors.

Main measures

We calculate monthly measures characterizing facility-level service provision, including the average time between successive primary care visits, the average primary care visit length, the percentage of primary care appointments that are overbooked, the percent of visits that are unscheduled (i.e., walk-ins), and the ratio of patients to providers. We control for economic factors that are associated with health care supply and demand, including median household income, veteran priority status, the Zillow Housing Price Index, and veteran unemployment rates. We also control for patient demographics.

Patients

We restrict the data to patients with at least one in-person primary care visit who have provided information on their ability to access urgent and routine care.

Key results

We find that shorter average follow-up times are associated with better access for patients needing urgent or routine care. A 1-month increase in the average time between successive primary care visits is associated with 10% (p < 0.001) lower odds of reporting being able to access urgent care within 1 day and 13% (p < 0.001) lower odds of reporting usually or always being able to access routine care when needed.

Conclusion

Facilities with higher average follow-up times are more likely to have patients report that they are unable to quickly access urgent or routine primary care.

SUBMITTER: Price ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7280427 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePrimary medical and dental clinics may accept fewer people who are deaf as patients than persons who can hear, and clinics may deny requests by patients who are deaf for American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation at appointments when necessary, creating diminished access to primary medical and dental care.ObjectiveTo compare the rate at which patients who are deaf are offered primary care medical or dental appointments with the rate at which appointments are offered to patients who can hear in a real-world context.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used a simulated patient (SP) call audit method. Simulated patients (4 who could hear and 4 who were deaf) followed a call script in which an adult sought to establish care, requesting new patient appointments from a statewide stratified random sample of clinicians listed in the Idaho Medical and Dental Associations member databases at 445 clinics (334 primary care and 111 general dentistry) throughout Idaho. Simulated patients who were deaf also requested interpreting services at the appointment. Calls were made between June 7 and December 6, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from December 2019 to April 2020.ExposuresSimulated patients who were deaf or could hear called primary care medical or dental clinics from the sampling frame and requested an appointment, supplying the same basic information. In addition, SPs who were deaf requested that an ASL interpreter be provided by the clinic for the appointment.Main outcomes and measuresRates of new appointments offered and, for SPs who were deaf, whether ASL interpreter services were confirmed for the appointment.ResultsTwo male and 2 female SPs who could hear were successful on 210 occasions (64.4%) when requesting a new patient appointment compared with 2 male and 2 female SPs who were deaf who were successful on 161 occasions (49.1%) (P < .001). Simulated patients who could hear were nearly 2 times more likely to secure appointments than were SPs who were deaf (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.79). For SPs who were deaf, 80 unsuccessful appointment requests (48.2%) were associated with a request for interpretation.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that in a statewide representative sample, access to primary medical and dental care for patients who are deaf is significantly reduced. Patients who are deaf may not receive an appointment if they request interpreter services, even when such services are required to provide effective communication.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough low-income populations have more eye problems, whether they face greater difficulty obtaining eye care appointments is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare rates of obtaining eye care appointments and appointment wait times for those with Medicaid vs those with private insurance.Design, setting, and participantsIn this prospective, cohort study conducted from January 1, 2017, to July 1, 2017, researchers made telephone calls to a randomly selected sample of vision care professionals in Michigan and Maryland stratified by neighborhood (urban vs rural) and professional type (ophthalmologist vs optometrist) to request the first available appointment. Appointments were sought for an adult needing a diabetic eye examination and a child requesting a routine eye examination for a failed vision screening. Researchers called each practice twice, once requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid and the other time for a patient with Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) insurance, and asked whether the insurance was accepted and, if so, when the earliest available appointment could be scheduled.Main outcomes and measuresRate of successfully made appointments and mean wait time for the first available appointment.ResultsA total of 603 telephone calls were made to 330 eye care professionals (414 calls [68.7%] to male and 189 calls [31.3%] to female eye care professionals). The sample consisted of ophthalmologists (303 [50.2%]) and optometrists (300 [49.8%]) located in Maryland (322 [53.4%]) and Michigan (281 [46.6%]). The rates of successfully obtaining appointments among callers were 61.5% (95% CI, 56.0%-67.0%) for adults with Medicaid and 79.3% (95% CI, 74.7%-83.9%) for adults with BCBS (P < .001) and 45.4% (95% CI, 39.8%-51.0%) for children with Medicaid and 62.5% (95% CI, 57.1%-68.0%) for children with BCBS (P < .001). Mean wait time did not vary significantly between the BCBS and Medicaid groups for both adults and children. Adults with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.59; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.49-3.87; P < .001) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.31-2.79; P < .001). Children with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73; P = .03) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 8.00; 95% CI, 5.37-11.90; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceCallers were less successful in trying to obtain eye care appointments with Medicaid than with BCBS, suggesting a disparity in access to eye care based on insurance status, although confounding factors may have contributed to this finding. Improving access to eye care professionals for those with Medicaid may improve health outcomes and decrease health care spending in the long term.