Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39185323›Full record

ArticleHealth services research and managerial epidemiology

Patient Opportunities to Self-Schedule in a Large Multisite, Multispecialty Medical Practice: Program Description and Uptake of 7 Unique Processes for Patients to Successfully Self-Schedule (and Reschedule) Their Medical Appointments.

Frederick North, Rebecca Buss, Elissa M Nelson, Matthew C Thompson, Jennifer Pecina, Brian A Crum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research and managerial epidemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Frederick NorthDivision of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3696-4595
Rebecca BussEnterprise Office of Access Management, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4583-4987
Elissa M NelsonEnterprise Office of Access Management, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4516-379X
Matthew C ThompsonEnterprise Office of Access Management, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0282-9181
Jennifer PecinaDepartment of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1970-1344
Brian A CrumEnterprise Office of Access Management, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2624-0649

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Patient self-scheduling of medical appointments is becoming more common in many medical institutions. However, the complexity of scheduling multiple specialties, following scheduling guidelines, and managing appointment access requires a variety of processes for a diverse inventory of self-schedulable appointment types. Methods: From 7 unique patient self-scheduling methods, we captured counts of successfully self-scheduled and completed appointments. A process map was created to show the paths of 5 different primary self-scheduling processes (new appointment self-scheduling) and 2 secondary self-scheduling processes (existing appointment self-rescheduling). Results: There were 7 unique processes that led to 733,651 successfully self-scheduled completed visits from January 1 to December 31, 2023 at a multisite, multispecialty clinic. The self-scheduling processes consisted of the following: (1) Ticket offer (appointment "ticket" offers for specific visits generated by a provider order or system rules), the software "ticket" sent to the patient permits "admission" to self-schedule calendar templates (341,591 uses, 46.6%); (2) direct self-scheduled visit for prequalified visit types (203,593 uses, 27.6%); (3) self-reschedule option (patient option to reschedule existing appointment, 79,706 uses, 10.9%); (4) new patient self-scheduled visit via clinic website (does not require portal access, 54,367 uses, 7.4%). (5) automated waitlist self-rescheduled visit (38,649 uses, 5.3%); (6) automated waitlist self-scheduled visit of previously unscheduled visit (10,939 uses, 1.5%); and (7) self-triage self-scheduled visit (4806 uses, 0.7%). Conclusion: The processes for self-scheduling are expanding. Our multispecialty clinic has implemented 7 different processes to help patients successfully self-schedule medical appointments. Some of the processes occur before initial scheduling (such as self-triage), and some are implemented after successful scheduling has already occurred (self-rescheduling option and self-rescheduling aided by an automated waitlist). Continued research is needed to look for measures of success beyond the ability to complete a self-scheduled visit, including the accuracy of the booking (right provider, location, and length of visit).

Indexed as

access to careappointment schedulingappointment waitlistpractice managementself-schedulevisit scheduling

Identifiers

PMID39185323
PMCPMC11342323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.