Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NHS Trust.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1177/1357633X231216501
Gabriele Kerr, Geva Greenfield, Benedict Hayhoe, Fiona Gaughran, Kristoffer Halvorsrud, Mariana Pinto da Costa, Nirandeep Rehill, Rosalind Raine, Azeem Majeed, Ceire Costelloe, Ana Luisa Neves, Thomas Beaney
{"title":"Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NHS Trust.","authors":"Gabriele Kerr, Geva Greenfield, Benedict Hayhoe, Fiona Gaughran, Kristoffer Halvorsrud, Mariana Pinto da Costa, Nirandeep Rehill, Rosalind Raine, Azeem Majeed, Ceire Costelloe, Ana Luisa Neves, Thomas Beaney","doi":"10.1177/1357633X231216501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionWith the growing use of remote appointments within the National Health Service, there is a need to understand potential barriers of access to care for some patients. In this observational study, we examined missed appointments rates, comparing remote and in-person appointments among different patient groups.MethodsWe analysed adult outpatient appointments at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in Northwest London in 2021. Rates of missed appointments per patient were compared between remote versus in-person appointments using negative binomial regression models. Models were stratified by appointment type (first or a follow-up).ResultsThere were 874,659 outpatient appointments for 189,882 patients, 29.5% of whom missed at least one appointment. Missed rates were 12.5% for remote first appointments and 9.2% for in-person first appointments. Remote and in-person follow-up appointments were missed at similar rates (10.4% and 10.7%, respectively). For remote and in-person appointments, younger patients, residents of more deprived areas, and patients of Black, Mixed and 'other' ethnicities missed more appointments. Male patients missed more in-person appointments, particularly at younger ages, but gender differences were minimal for remote appointments. Patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) missed more first appointments, whether in-person or remote. In follow-up appointments, patients with LTCs missed more in-person appointments but fewer remote appointments.DiscussionRemote first appointments were missed more often than in-person first appointments, follow-up appointments had similar attendance rates for both modalities. Sociodemographic differences in outpatient appointment attendance were largely similar between in-person and remote appointments, indicating no widening of inequalities in attendance due to appointment modality.</p>","PeriodicalId":50024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","volume":" ","pages":"721-731"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12095891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X231216501","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionWith the growing use of remote appointments within the National Health Service, there is a need to understand potential barriers of access to care for some patients. In this observational study, we examined missed appointments rates, comparing remote and in-person appointments among different patient groups.MethodsWe analysed adult outpatient appointments at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in Northwest London in 2021. Rates of missed appointments per patient were compared between remote versus in-person appointments using negative binomial regression models. Models were stratified by appointment type (first or a follow-up).ResultsThere were 874,659 outpatient appointments for 189,882 patients, 29.5% of whom missed at least one appointment. Missed rates were 12.5% for remote first appointments and 9.2% for in-person first appointments. Remote and in-person follow-up appointments were missed at similar rates (10.4% and 10.7%, respectively). For remote and in-person appointments, younger patients, residents of more deprived areas, and patients of Black, Mixed and 'other' ethnicities missed more appointments. Male patients missed more in-person appointments, particularly at younger ages, but gender differences were minimal for remote appointments. Patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) missed more first appointments, whether in-person or remote. In follow-up appointments, patients with LTCs missed more in-person appointments but fewer remote appointments.DiscussionRemote first appointments were missed more often than in-person first appointments, follow-up appointments had similar attendance rates for both modalities. Sociodemographic differences in outpatient appointment attendance were largely similar between in-person and remote appointments, indicating no widening of inequalities in attendance due to appointment modality.

一家英国国家医疗服务系统信托公司的远程与面对面门诊预约就诊情况。
导言:随着远程预约在国民健康服务中的应用越来越广泛,我们有必要了解一些患者在获得医疗服务时可能遇到的障碍。在这项观察性研究中,我们对不同患者群体的远程预约和现场预约的失约率进行了比较:我们分析了 2021 年伦敦西北部帝国理工学院医疗保健 NHS 信托基金会的成人门诊预约情况。使用负二项回归模型比较了远程预约与现场预约的每位患者的失约率。模型按预约类型(首次或复诊)进行分层:共有 189,882 名患者接受了 874,659 次门诊预约,其中 29.5% 的患者至少错过了一次预约。远程首次预约的失约率为 12.5%,现场首次预约的失约率为 9.2%。远程和面对面复诊的错过率相似(分别为 10.4% 和 10.7%)。就远程和面对面预约而言,较年轻的患者、较贫困地区的居民以及黑人、混血和 "其他 "种族的患者错过的预约较多。男性患者错过了更多的面对面预约,尤其是年轻患者,但远程预约的性别差异很小。患有长期疾病(LTC)的患者错过了更多的首次预约,无论是亲诊还是远程预约。在复诊中,长期病患者错过的面诊次数较多,但错过的远程预约次数较少:讨论:远程首诊的缺席率高于面诊首诊,两种方式的复诊出席率相似。面对面预约和远程预约在门诊就诊率方面的社会人口学差异基本相似,这表明就诊率的不平等并未因预约方式而扩大。
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
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare provides excellent peer reviewed coverage of developments in telemedicine and e-health and is now widely recognised as the leading journal in its field. Contributions from around the world provide a unique perspective on how different countries and health systems are using new technology in health care. Sections within the journal include technology updates, editorials, original articles, research tutorials, educational material, review articles and reports from various telemedicine organisations. A subscription to this journal will help you to stay up-to-date in this fast moving and growing area of medicine.
×
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