Lyric Chaplin, Patrick Gregory, Benjamin Smith, Brittney Champagne, Amit Patel, Holly Alvarado, Marie Tuft, Joshua Burrows, Alice Parish, Alaattin Erkanli
{"title":"Assessment of different intervention models to decrease no-show rates of embedded pharmacy visits.","authors":"Lyric Chaplin, Patrick Gregory, Benjamin Smith, Brittney Champagne, Amit Patel, Holly Alvarado, Marie Tuft, Joshua Burrows, Alice Parish, Alaattin Erkanli","doi":"10.1016/j.japh.2025.102364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) are embedded in several Duke Primary Care (DPC) clinic locations. CPPs are able to independently modify medications and order labs within protocol in collaboration with a supervising physician. Patient no-shows for CPP appointments are costly to clinics. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of two interventions on patient no-show rates for CPP appointments and to identify barriers patients may face that lead to no-shows.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Determine if the interventions were associated with a change in the no-show rate for embedded DPC CPP appointments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Single-center, prospective, intervention study of no-show rates of DPC clinical pharmacist appointments. Appointments with patients under 18 years of age were excluded. Interventions were implemented between September 2023 to November 2023. The interventions consisted of a reminder message sent to the patient or a conversion of an in-person visit to a virtual visit if the patient was more than five minutes late. The intervention groups were compared to a control group from one year prior. A chi-square test was used to compare no-show rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total of 1645 appointments were included. The no-show rate was 20.4% in the control arm, 18.0% in the patient portal message arm and 15.7% in the virtual arm. Average estimated financial loss per day due to no-shows was numerically lower in the intervention groups compared to the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two intervention groups experienced numerically lower no-show rates in comparison to the control, but the differences were not statistically significant. We were not able to identify specific patient barriers that were associated with increased likelihood to no-show. More studies are needed to further evaluate the impact of these interventions. Next steps involve the feasibility and implementation of these interventions into clinic workflow on a long-term basis.</p>","PeriodicalId":50015,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Pharmacists Association","volume":" ","pages":"102364"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Pharmacists Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2025.102364","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) are embedded in several Duke Primary Care (DPC) clinic locations. CPPs are able to independently modify medications and order labs within protocol in collaboration with a supervising physician. Patient no-shows for CPP appointments are costly to clinics. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of two interventions on patient no-show rates for CPP appointments and to identify barriers patients may face that lead to no-shows.
Objectives: Determine if the interventions were associated with a change in the no-show rate for embedded DPC CPP appointments.
Methods: Single-center, prospective, intervention study of no-show rates of DPC clinical pharmacist appointments. Appointments with patients under 18 years of age were excluded. Interventions were implemented between September 2023 to November 2023. The interventions consisted of a reminder message sent to the patient or a conversion of an in-person visit to a virtual visit if the patient was more than five minutes late. The intervention groups were compared to a control group from one year prior. A chi-square test was used to compare no-show rates.
Results: Total of 1645 appointments were included. The no-show rate was 20.4% in the control arm, 18.0% in the patient portal message arm and 15.7% in the virtual arm. Average estimated financial loss per day due to no-shows was numerically lower in the intervention groups compared to the control group.
Conclusion: The two intervention groups experienced numerically lower no-show rates in comparison to the control, but the differences were not statistically significant. We were not able to identify specific patient barriers that were associated with increased likelihood to no-show. More studies are needed to further evaluate the impact of these interventions. Next steps involve the feasibility and implementation of these interventions into clinic workflow on a long-term basis.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of the American Pharmacists Association is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), providing information on pharmaceutical care, drug therapy, diseases and other health issues, trends in pharmacy practice and therapeutics, informed opinion, and original research. JAPhA publishes original research, reviews, experiences, and opinion articles that link science to contemporary pharmacy practice to improve patient care.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
