Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18559842›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2008

Implementing open-access scheduling of visits in primary care practices: a cautionary tale.

Ateev Mehrotra, Lori Keehl-Markowitz, John Z Ayanian

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ateev MehrotraDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. mehrotra@rand.org
Lori Keehl-Markowitz
John Z Ayanian
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstitutionKL2RR024154 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2006 to 2011
$22.2M
University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstitutionKL2TR000146 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$8.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000146NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024154NCRR NIH HHS KL2-RR024154-01PHS HHS 5 T32 HP11001-15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpen-access scheduling (also known as advanced access or same-day access) is a popular tool for improving patient access to primary care appointments.

objectiveTo assess the effect of open-access scheduling and describe the barriers to implementing the open-access scheduling model in primary care.

designCase series.

settingBoston, Massachusetts, metropolitan area.

participants6 primary care practices studied from October 2003 through June 2006.

interventionImplementation of open-access scheduling. MEASUREMENTS: Time to third available appointments, no-show rates, and patient and staff satisfaction with appointment availability.

results5 of 6 practices were able to implement open-access scheduling. Within 4 months of implementation, these 5 practices substantially reduced their mean wait for third available appointments from 21 to 8 days for 15-minute visits and from 39 to 14 days for 30-minute visits. However, none of the 5 practices attained the goal of same-day access, and waits for third available appointments increased during 2 years of follow-up. No consistent changes in patient or staff satisfaction or patient no-show rates were found. Barriers to implementation included decreases in appointment supply from provider leaves of absence and departures and increases in appointment demand when practices reopened to new patients after initial implementation of open-access scheduling. LIMITATIONS: The study lacked control practices. The small number of practices and providers precluded formal statistical comparisons.

conclusionIn 5 of 6 primary care practices, implementation of open-access scheduling improved appointment access in some practices. However, none was able to achieve same-day access and patient and staff satisfaction and patient no-show rates were unchanged. Broader evaluation of open-access scheduling in primary care is needed.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesBostonHealth Services AccessibilityHumansJob SatisfactionOffice ManagementPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID18559842
PMCPMC2587225
OpenAlexW2055476904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.