Determinants of Patient No-Shows in a Multisite Urogynecology Clinic [ID: 1376316]

Jeannine Miranne, Alexa Courtepatte, Vatche Minassian, Stephanie Schatzman-Bone
{"title":"Determinants of Patient No-Shows in a Multisite Urogynecology Clinic [ID: 1376316]","authors":"Jeannine Miranne, Alexa Courtepatte, Vatche Minassian, Stephanie Schatzman-Bone","doi":"10.1097/01.aog.0000931084.89174.ad","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who “no-show” urogynecology appointments and identify risk factors for “no-show” appointments. METHODS: We conducted an IRB-approved prospective chart review study of women aged 18 years or older scheduled for a urogynecology appointment at four outpatient clinical sites associated with an urban academic tertiary care referral center over 4 months. Patients were included in the no-show group if they did not show up for their appointment or cancelled their appointment the same day. For a comparison group, the patient immediately prior to or after the one who “no-showed” with the same visit type was included. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for “no-show” appointments. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-six women were included, 213 in both the no-show and show groups. Women who “no-showed” were younger (median age 60 [interquartile range (IQR) 47–72] versus 69 [IQR 59–78], P <.001). More women in the no-show group were Hispanic (24.4% versus 13.1%) and non-Hispanic Black (7.51% versus 3.76%, P =.0093), had Medicaid (17.4% versus 6.57%, P =.0006), no-showed a previous appointment (24.9% versus 11.7% P =.0005), had to wait longer for an appointment (median 39 days [IQR 23.5–55.5] versus 30.5 days [IQR 12.8–47.0], P =.002), and made appointments for urinary incontinence (44.1% versus 26.8%, P =.0002). On multivariate logistic regression, women with Medicaid had significantly higher odds of “no-showing” their appointment (adjusted odds ratio, 2.11 [1.04–4.48], P =.0440). CONCLUSION: Women with Medicaid are particularly likely to “no-show” urogynecology appointments. Further research is needed to identify and address potential barriers this group faces when accessing care.","PeriodicalId":19405,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000931084.89174.ad","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who “no-show” urogynecology appointments and identify risk factors for “no-show” appointments. METHODS: We conducted an IRB-approved prospective chart review study of women aged 18 years or older scheduled for a urogynecology appointment at four outpatient clinical sites associated with an urban academic tertiary care referral center over 4 months. Patients were included in the no-show group if they did not show up for their appointment or cancelled their appointment the same day. For a comparison group, the patient immediately prior to or after the one who “no-showed” with the same visit type was included. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for “no-show” appointments. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-six women were included, 213 in both the no-show and show groups. Women who “no-showed” were younger (median age 60 [interquartile range (IQR) 47–72] versus 69 [IQR 59–78], P <.001). More women in the no-show group were Hispanic (24.4% versus 13.1%) and non-Hispanic Black (7.51% versus 3.76%, P =.0093), had Medicaid (17.4% versus 6.57%, P =.0006), no-showed a previous appointment (24.9% versus 11.7% P =.0005), had to wait longer for an appointment (median 39 days [IQR 23.5–55.5] versus 30.5 days [IQR 12.8–47.0], P =.002), and made appointments for urinary incontinence (44.1% versus 26.8%, P =.0002). On multivariate logistic regression, women with Medicaid had significantly higher odds of “no-showing” their appointment (adjusted odds ratio, 2.11 [1.04–4.48], P =.0440). CONCLUSION: Women with Medicaid are particularly likely to “no-show” urogynecology appointments. Further research is needed to identify and address potential barriers this group faces when accessing care.
多址泌尿妇科门诊患者缺席的影响因素[j]
前言:本研究的目的是描述“未到”泌尿妇科预约的患者的社会人口学和临床特征,并确定“未到”预约的危险因素。方法:我们进行了一项经irb批准的前瞻性图表回顾研究,研究对象为18岁或以上的女性,她们在一家城市三级学术转诊中心的4个门诊诊所接受泌尿妇科预约,时间超过4个月。如果患者当天没有赴约或取消了预约,他们就被归为“未赴约组”。作为比较组,在同一就诊类型的“不来”患者之前或之后的患者被包括在内。使用逻辑回归来确定“未赴约”的风险因素。结果:共纳入426名女性,其中不出席组和出席组各213名。“缺席”的女性更年轻(中位年龄为60岁[四分位间距(IQR) 47-72]对69岁[IQR 59-78], P < 0.001)。未就诊组中更多的女性是西班牙裔(24.4%比13.1%)和非西班牙裔黑人(7.51%比3.76%,P = 0.0093),有医疗保险(17.4%比6.57%,P = 0.0006),未就诊(24.9%比11.7% P = 0.0005),等待就诊时间更长(中位数为39天[IQR 23.5-55.5]比30.5天[IQR 12.8-47.0], P = 0.002),因尿失禁就诊(44.1%比26.8%,P = 0.0002)。在多因素logistic回归中,接受医疗补助的女性“不赴约”的几率明显更高(调整后的优势比为2.11 [1.04-4.48],P = 0.0440)。结论:接受医疗补助的女性特别有可能“缺席”泌尿妇科预约。需要进一步的研究来确定和解决这一群体在获得护理时面临的潜在障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信