BackgroundMissed appointments are known to interfere with appropriate care and to misspend medical and administrative resources. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a sequential intervention reminding patients of their upcoming appointment and to identify the profile of patients missing their appointments.MethodsWe conducted a randomised controlled study in an urban primary care clinic at the Geneva University Hospitals serving a majority of vulnerable patients. All patients booked in a primary care or HIV clinic at the Geneva University Hospitals were sent a reminder 48 hrs prior to their appointment according to the following sequential intervention: 1. Phone call (fixed or mobile) reminder; 2. If no phone response: a Short Message Service (SMS) reminder; 3. If no available mobile phone number: a postal reminder. The rate of missed appointment, the cost of the intervention, and the profile of patients missing their appointment were recorded.Results2123 patients were included: 1052 in the intervention group, 1071 in the control group. Only 61.7% patients had a mobile phone recorded at the clinic. The sequential intervention significantly reduced the rate of missed appointments: 11.4% (n = 122) in the control group and 7.8% (n = 82) in the intervention group (p < 0.005), and allowed to reallocate 28% of cancelled appointments. It also proved to be cost effective in providing a total net benefit of 1846. - EUR/3 months. A satisfaction survey conducted with 241 patients showed that 93% of them were not bothered by the reminders and 78% considered them to be useful. By multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were significant predictors of missed appointments: younger age (OR per additional decade 0.82; CI 0.71-0.94), male gender (OR 1.72; CI 1.18-2.50), follow-up appointment >1year (OR 2.2; CI: 1.15-4.2), substance abuse (2.09, CI 1.21-3.61), and being an asylum seeker (OR 2.73: CI 1.22-6.09).ConclusionA practical reminder system can significantly increase patient attendance at medical outpatient clinics. An intervention focused on specific patient characteristics could further increase the effectiveness of appointment reminders.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders, to define factors associated with CPR/DNAR orders and to explore how physicians make and document these decisions. Methods: We prospectively reviewed CPR/DNAR forms of 1,446 patients admitted to the General Internal Medicine Department of the Geneva University Hospitals, a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Switzerland. We additionally administered a face-to-face survey to residents in charge of 206 patients including DNAR and CPR orders, with or without patient inclusion. Results: 21.2% of the patients had a DNAR order, 61.7% a CPR order and 17.1% had neither. The two main factors associated with DNAR orders were a worse prognosis and/or a worse quality of life. Others factors were an older age, cancer and psychiatric diagnoses, and the absence of decision-making capacity. Residents gave four major justifications for DNAR orders: important comorbid conditions (34%), the patients’ or their family’s resuscitation preferences (18%), the patients’ age (14.2%), and the absence of decision-making capacity (8%). Residents who wrote DNAR orders were more experienced. In many of the DNAR or CPR forms (19.8 and 16%, respectively), the order was written using a variety of formulations. For 24% of the residents, the distinction between the resuscitation order and the care objective was not clear. 38% of the residents found the resuscitation form useful. Conclusion: Patients’ prognosis and quality of life were the two main independent factors associated with CPR/DNAR orders. However, in the majority of cases, residents evaluated prognosis only intuitively, and quality of life without involving the patients. The distinction between CPR/DNAR orders and the care objectives was not always clear. Specific training regarding CPR/DNAR orders is necessary to improve the CPR/DNAR decision process used by physicians.

BackgroundTelephone or text-message reminders have been shown to significantly reduce the rate of missed appointments in different medical settings. Since text-messaging is less resource-demanding, we tested the hypothesis that text-message reminders would be as effective as telephone reminders in an academic primary care clinic.MethodsA randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted in the academic primary care division of the Geneva University Hospitals between November 2010 and April 2011. Patients registered for an appointment at the clinic, and for whom a cell phone number was available, were randomly selected to receive a text-message or a telephone call reminder 24 hours before the planned appointment. Patients were included each time they had an appointment. The main outcome was the rate of unexplained missed appointments. Appointments were not missed if they were cancelled or re-scheduled before or independently from the intervention. We defined non-inferiority as a difference below 2% in the rate of missed appointments and powered the study accordingly. A satisfaction survey was conducted among a random sample of 900 patients (response rate 41%).Results6450 patients were included, 3285 in the text-message group and 3165 in the telephone group. The rate of missed appointments was similar in the text-message group (11.7%, 95% CI: 10.6-12.8) and in the telephone group (10.2%, 95% CI: 9.2-11.3 p = 0.07). However, only text message reminders were cost-effective. No patient reported any disturbance by any type of reminder in the satisfaction survey. Three quarters of surveyed patients recommended its regular implementation in the clinic.ConclusionsText-message reminders are equivalent to telephone reminders in reducing the proportion of missed appointments in an academic primary care clinic and are more cost-effective. Both types of reminders are well accepted by patients.

No abstract

No abstract