ArticlePLoS medicine2021
Characterising the nationwide burden and predictors of unkept outpatient appointments in the National Health Service in England: A cohort study using a machine learning approach.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine-learning-based models for the optimization of post-cervical spinal laminoplasty outpatient follow-up schedules.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Trial
- Clinical, Patient Experience and Service Outcomes of a Leisure Centre-Based NHS Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Service: A Service Evaluation.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Article
- Advancing global health access through market shaping: Cases and learnings.PLOS global public health · 2026Review
- Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NHS Trust.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2025Observational
- Patient Source of Referral Is a Key Determinant of Subsequent Retention in Care for Young Chronic Hepatitis B Patients.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2025Article
- Understanding the causes of missingness in primary care: a realist review.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- Patients' Nonattendance in Outpatient Specialist Consultations: A National Cohort Analysis of a Health System.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Predicting missed health care visits during the COVID-19 pandemic using machine learning methods: evidence from 55,500 individuals from 28 European countries.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Socioeconomic and demographic factors predictive of missed appointments in outpatient radiation oncology: an evaluation of access.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- The Effect on Patients' Visual Acuity and Grade, Secondary to Non-Attendance at Treatment Centers, Post Referral from Diabetic RetinaScreen Ireland.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnkept outpatient hospital appointments cost the National Health Service £1 billion each year. Given the associated costs and morbidity of unkept appointments, this is an issue requiring urgent attention. We aimed to determine rates of unkept outpatient clinic appointments across hospital trusts in the England. In addition, we aimed to examine the predictors of unkept outpatient clinic appointments across specialties at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHT). Our final aim was to train machine learning models to determine the effectiveness of a potential intervention in reducing unkept appointments. METHODS AND
findingsUK Hospital Episode Statistics outpatient data from 2016 to 2018 were used for this study. Machine learning models were trained to determine predictors of unkept appointments and their relative importance. These models were gradient boosting machines. In 2017-2018 there were approximately 85 million outpatient appointments, with an unkept appointment rate of 5.7%. Within ICHT, there were almost 1 million appointments, with an unkept appointment rate of 11.2%. Hepatology had the highest rate of unkept appointments (17%), and medical oncology had the lowest (6%). The most important predictors of unkept appointments included the recency (25%) and frequency (13%) of previous unkept appointments and age at appointment (10%). A sensitivity of 0.287 was calculated overall for specialties with at least 10,000 appointments in 2016-2017 (after data cleaning). This suggests that 28.7% of patients who do miss their appointment would be successfully targeted if the top 10% least likely to attend received an intervention. As a result, an intervention targeting the top 10% of likely non-attenders, in the full population of patients, would be able to capture 28.7% of unkept appointments if successful. Study limitations include that some unkept appointments may have been missed from the analysis because recording of unkept appointments is not mandatory in England. Furthermore, results here are based on a single trust in England, hence may not be generalisable to other locations.
conclusionsUnkept appointments remain an ongoing concern for healthcare systems internationally. Using machine learning, we can identify those most likely to miss their appointment and implement more targeted interventions to reduce unkept appointment rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.