Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20841595›Full record

ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2010

Adoption of open-access scheduling in an academic family practice.

Stewart Cameron, Laura Sadler, Beverley Lawson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Which patients miss appointments with general practice and the reasons why: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    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. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Academic family health teams: Part 2: patient perceptions of access.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stewart CameronDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, 8th Floor, Abbie Jane Lane Bldg, 5909 Veterans' Memorial Lane, Halifax, NS B3H 2E2. Stewart.Cameron@Dal.Ca
Laura Sadler
Beverley Lawson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

problem addressedPatients have to wait too long to see their family physicians. Open access, a new approach to office scheduling, has shown promise in reducing patient wait times to see primary care physicians. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To offer same-day appointments to most patients who call the office, thus reducing wait times as measured by the third available appointment. Reductions in no-show rates have also been reported by those who have adopted the open-access system. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Following extensive preparation, a 2-site academic practice in Halifax, NS, adopted open-access booking in October 2008. Data on third available appointment times, no-show appointments, and patient volumes were tracked before and during the yearlong implementation.

conclusionThe clinics recorded a substantial, sustained reduction in third available appointment time, indicating improved patient access. There was also a decline in no-show appointments. Patient volumes were unaffected.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesEfficiency, OrganizationalAcademic Medical CentersCanadaFamily PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansOrganizational InnovationTime FactorsWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID20841595
PMCPMC2939120

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.