{"title":"On Missed Appointments: The Ethics of Nonattendance in General Practice","authors":"Richard C. Armitage","doi":"10.1111/jep.70222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>A substantial number of general practice appointments in England are missed each year, which incurs considerable cost to the NHS. In the absence of an authoritative policy, there is variation in how GPs manage missed appointments in this setting. There are various reasons for why patients miss their GP appointments, many of which lie outside the patients' control.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This paper undertakes an ethical analysis, using the framework of Principlism, of missed GP appointments in the NHS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>This paper finds that missed appointments might prevent the patient's autonomy (which requires the health problem for which the GP appointment was booked to be adequately addressed) from being upheld, frustrate the possibility of promoting beneficence (particularly among patients with multimorbidity and mental health problems), threaten non-maleficence (also particularly among patients with multimorbidity and mental health problems), and violate the principle of justice due to exacerbating health inequalities and wasted scarce healthcare resources.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This paper suggests that GPs should make efforts to contact patients who miss their appointments, via telephone in cases of missed in-person appointments, and via multiple attempted calls in cases of missed telephone or online appointments.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70222","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70222","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
A substantial number of general practice appointments in England are missed each year, which incurs considerable cost to the NHS. In the absence of an authoritative policy, there is variation in how GPs manage missed appointments in this setting. There are various reasons for why patients miss their GP appointments, many of which lie outside the patients' control.
Methods
This paper undertakes an ethical analysis, using the framework of Principlism, of missed GP appointments in the NHS.
Findings
This paper finds that missed appointments might prevent the patient's autonomy (which requires the health problem for which the GP appointment was booked to be adequately addressed) from being upheld, frustrate the possibility of promoting beneficence (particularly among patients with multimorbidity and mental health problems), threaten non-maleficence (also particularly among patients with multimorbidity and mental health problems), and violate the principle of justice due to exacerbating health inequalities and wasted scarce healthcare resources.
Conclusion
This paper suggests that GPs should make efforts to contact patients who miss their appointments, via telephone in cases of missed in-person appointments, and via multiple attempted calls in cases of missed telephone or online appointments.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.