Dataset Information

Simple Interventions Improve the Quality of a Missed Lab Appointment Process.

ABSTRACT: Simple interventions resolve the problem of missed lab appointments. It is essential that patients complete ordered laboratory studies. This maintains clinical quality and, potentially, keeps patients safe from harm. In our academic family medicine practice, baseline data demonstrated patients completed 94.7% of labs as ordered (26850/28348 patients per year) while 1498 (5.3%) did not. Our baseline patient reminder process, a mail or portal based generic letter, resulted in only 449 (30%) of patients ultimately completing them (1049 [70%] did not). Our baseline system was 96.3 % reliable. This process did not allow for provider review or input, and was not personalized for patients. We designed a quality improvement project involving three PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, and Act) cycles of about two months each. Desk staff created weekly reports of unresolved lab orders. A message in the electronic medical record (EMR) solicited provider input. Providers could elect to cancel studies (if already completed, reordered, or no longer clinically indicated) or have the patient receive a personalized reminder, including provider name and associated diagnoses. This reminder was sent by patient portal secure messaging (if an account existed) or with a mailed letter. These interventions resulted in 98.8 % process reliability. The frequency of unresolved lab orders decreased from 70% at baseline to 25%. In the second PDSA cycle, we contacted patients by the portal only if there was evidence of an active account. Otherwise, they were contacted by telephone. Patients without a portal account continued to receive a letter by mail. These modified processes resulted in an overall reliability rate of 99.2%. The frequency of unresolved lab orders decreased to 17%. A final PDSA cycle utilized only telephone contact with patients with unresolved lab orders. Schedulers offered patients a choice of appointment dates if they spoke personally. Otherwise, they were left messages with a future lab appointment date two weeks later.Overall process reliability now increased to 100%. The frequency of unresolved lab orders decreased to 0%. Our interventions resulted in increased system reliability.Provider input was not perceived as burdensome. Desk staff work effort was not increased.Telephone patient contact resulted in more frequent lab order completion than other methods.

SUBMITTER: Mookadam M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4863435 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMissed hospital appointments are a major cause of inefficiency worldwide. Healthcare providers are increasingly using Short Message Service reminders to reduce 'Did Not Attend' (DNA) rates. Systematic reviews show that sending such reminders is effective, but there is no evidence on whether their impact is affected by their content. Accordingly, we undertook two randomised controlled trials that tested the impact of rephrasing appointment reminders on DNA rates in the United Kingdom.Trial methodsParticipants were outpatients with a valid mobile telephone number and an outpatient appointment between November 2013 and January 2014 (Trial One, 10,111 participants) or March and May 2014 (Trial Two, 9,848 participants). Appointments were randomly allocated to one of four reminder messages, which were issued five days in advance. Message assignment was then compared against appointment outcomes (appointment attendance, DNA, cancellation by patient).ResultsIn Trial One, a message including the cost of a missed appointment to the health system produced a DNA rate of 8.4%, compared to 11.1% for the existing message (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P<0.01). Trial Two replicated this effect (DNA rate 8.2%), but also found that expressing the same concept in general terms was significantly less effective (DNA rate 9.9%, OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.00-1.48, P<0.05). Moving from the existing reminder to the more effective costs message would result in 5,800 fewer missed appointments per year in the National Health Service Trust in question, at no additional cost. The study's main limitations are that it took place in a single location in England, and that it required accurate phone records, which were only obtained for 20% of eligible patients. We conclude that missed appointments can be reduced, for no additional cost, by introducing persuasive messages to appointment reminders. Future studies could examine the impact of varying reminder messages in other health systems.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com 49432571.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We aimed to determine the best study designs for assessing interventions to improve the peer review process according to experts' opinions. Furthermore, for interventions previously evaluated, we determined whether the study designs actually used were rated as the best study designs. METHODS:Study design: A series of six vignette-based surveys exploring the best study designs for six different interventions (training peer reviewers, adding an expert to the peer review process, use of reporting guidelines checklists, blinding peer reviewers to the results (i.e., results-free peer review), giving incentives to peer reviewers, and post-publication peer review). Vignette construction: Vignettes were case scenarios of trials assessing interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review. For each intervention, the vignette included the study type (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT]), setting (e.g., single biomedical journal), and type of manuscript assessed (e.g., actual manuscripts received by the journal); each of these three features varied between vignettes. PARTICIPANTS:Researchers with expertise in peer review or methodology of clinical trials. OUTCOME:Participants were proposed two vignettes describing two different study designs to assess the same intervention and had to indicate which study design they preferred on a scale, from -?5 (preference for study A) to 5 (preference for study B), 0 indicating no preference between the suggested designs (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were trust in the results and feasibility of the designs. RESULTS:A total of 204 experts assessed 1044 paired comparisons. The preferred study type was RCTs with randomization of manuscripts for four interventions (adding an expert, use of reporting guidelines checklist, results-free peer review, post-publication peer review) and RCTs with randomization of peer reviewers for two interventions (training peer reviewers and using incentives). The preferred setting was mainly several biomedical journals from different publishers, and the preferred type of manuscript was actual manuscripts submitted to journals. However, the most feasible designs were often cluster RCTs and interrupted time series analysis set in a single biomedical journal, with the assessment of a fabricated manuscript. Three interventions were previously assessed: none used the design rated first in preference by experts. CONCLUSION:The vignette-based survey allowed us to identify the best study designs for assessing different interventions to improve peer review according to experts' opinion. There is gap between the preferred study designs and the designs actually used.

Project description:ObjectiveTo implement and evaluate co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results and make recommendations for future research and practice.DesignA process evaluation underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory.SettingThree National Health Service provider organisations in England.ParticipantsTwenty-four healthcare professionals (7 newborn screening laboratory staff and 24 clinicians) and 18 parents were interviewed.InterventionsThree co-designed interventions were implemented in practice: standardised laboratory proformas, communication checklists and an email/letter template.Primary outcome measuresAcceptability and feasibility of the co-designed interventions.ResultsAuditing the implementation of these interventions revealed between 58%-76% of the items on the laboratory proforma and 43%-80% of items on the communication checklists were completed. Interviews with healthcare professionals who had used the interventions in practice provided positive feedback in relation to the purpose of the interventions and the ease of completion both of which were viewed as enhancing communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results. Interviews with parents highlighted the perceived benefit of the co-designed interventions in terms of consistency, pacing and tailoring of information as well as providing reliable information to families following communication of the positive newborn bloodspot screening result. The process evaluation illuminated organisational and contextual barriers during implementation of the co-designed interventions in practice.ConclusionVariations in communication practices for positive newborn bloodspot screening results continue to exist. The co-designed interventions could help to standardise communication of positive newborn screening results from laboratories to clinicians and from clinicians to parents which in turn could improve parents' experience of receiving a positive newborn bloodspot screening result. Implementation highlighted some organisational and contextual barriers to effective adoption of the co-designed interventions in practice.Trial registration numberISRCTN15330120.

Dataset Information

Simple Interventions Improve the Quality of a Missed Lab Appointment Process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets