Kevin Chen, Khera Bailey, Simon Nemytov, Kenan Katranji, Michael Bouton, Andrew B. Wallach, Hannah B. Jackson
{"title":"Volunteer Outreach and Predictive Modeling: Rapid Randomized Quality Improvement Project for New Patient Attendance in a Primary Care Safety-Net","authors":"Kevin Chen, Khera Bailey, Simon Nemytov, Kenan Katranji, Michael Bouton, Andrew B. Wallach, Hannah B. Jackson","doi":"10.1111/jep.70278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Nonattendance at new patient appointments leads to missed opportunities for engagement in care, lost revenue, and suboptimal resource utilization.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the effectiveness of outreach calls to new patients, prioritized by a no-show predictive algorithm and conducted by volunteers, on visit attendance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Rapid randomized quality improvement project.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Participants</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with new patient appointments at an urban safety-net adult primary care clinic scheduled to occur between August 1, 2024 and September 30, 2024.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Intervention</h3>\n \n <p>Estimated probability of visit no-show for patients was calculated using a predictive algorithm embedded in the electronic health record and used to sort lists of patients with upcoming appointments. Every other patient received an outreach call from a trained volunteer within 3 business days of their appointment plus usual automated reminder messages versus usual automated reminder messages alone.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Measures</h3>\n \n <p>New patient visit attendance compared between intervention and control groups. We conducted subgroup analyses of attendance by visit modality (in-person vs. telehealth), preferred language, and quartile of predicted no-show probability.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Key Results</h3>\n \n <p>Patients in the intervention group (<i>n</i> = 281) had higher visit attendance than those in the control group (<i>n</i> = 280): 68.0% versus 54.1% (<i>p</i> < 0.01). There was a significant difference in attendance for in-person (70.7% vs. 51.7%; <i>p</i> < 0.01) but not telehealth (60.6% vs. 61.2%; <i>p</i> = 0.94) visits. Patients who preferred English had the biggest increase in attendance (17.2%; <i>p</i> < 0.01). Patients in the second and third quartiles of predicted no-show probability (31%–38% and 39%–45% predicted probability) had the biggest increases in attendance (22.2% [<i>p</i> = 0.01] and 15.4% [<i>p</i> = 0.05]).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Outreach calls for new patients, prioritized by a no-show predictive algorithm and conducted by volunteers, can be a feasible and effective approach to improving visit attendance in a targeted fashion. Further investigation is needed to understand how to better support non-English preferring patients and patients with telehealth appointments.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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.70278","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
Background
Nonattendance at new patient appointments leads to missed opportunities for engagement in care, lost revenue, and suboptimal resource utilization.
Objective
To assess the effectiveness of outreach calls to new patients, prioritized by a no-show predictive algorithm and conducted by volunteers, on visit attendance.
Design
Rapid randomized quality improvement project.
Participants
Patients with new patient appointments at an urban safety-net adult primary care clinic scheduled to occur between August 1, 2024 and September 30, 2024.
Intervention
Estimated probability of visit no-show for patients was calculated using a predictive algorithm embedded in the electronic health record and used to sort lists of patients with upcoming appointments. Every other patient received an outreach call from a trained volunteer within 3 business days of their appointment plus usual automated reminder messages versus usual automated reminder messages alone.
Main Measures
New patient visit attendance compared between intervention and control groups. We conducted subgroup analyses of attendance by visit modality (in-person vs. telehealth), preferred language, and quartile of predicted no-show probability.
Key Results
Patients in the intervention group (n = 281) had higher visit attendance than those in the control group (n = 280): 68.0% versus 54.1% (p < 0.01). There was a significant difference in attendance for in-person (70.7% vs. 51.7%; p < 0.01) but not telehealth (60.6% vs. 61.2%; p = 0.94) visits. Patients who preferred English had the biggest increase in attendance (17.2%; p < 0.01). Patients in the second and third quartiles of predicted no-show probability (31%–38% and 39%–45% predicted probability) had the biggest increases in attendance (22.2% [p = 0.01] and 15.4% [p = 0.05]).
Conclusions
Outreach calls for new patients, prioritized by a no-show predictive algorithm and conducted by volunteers, can be a feasible and effective approach to improving visit attendance in a targeted fashion. Further investigation is needed to understand how to better support non-English preferring patients and patients with telehealth 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.