Maximizing patient follow‐up after alcohol treatment: The effect of a three‐step reminding system on response rates

Bamford, Zandra; Booth, Peter G.; McGuire, James; Salmon, Peter

doi:10.1080/14659890410001665069

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was a statistically significant improvement in attendance in this early randomised controlled trial. Similar positive results have since been reported for first attenders by Burgoyne et al (1983), MacDonald et al (2000) and Conduit et al (2004), and for both first attenders and follow-up patients by Shivack & Sullivan (1989) and for follow-up patients by Bamford et al (2004), the latter using both telephone and postal reminders with alcohol misusers. Telephone reminders seem to be particularly effective for elderly patients, especially those with dementia (Dockery et al, 2001).…”

Section: Reminder and Memory Aidssupporting

confidence: 69%

Why don't patients attend their appointments? Maintaining engagement with psychiatric services

Mitchell¹,

Selmes²

2007

Adv. psychiatr. treat

244

254

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients miss about 20% of scheduled appointments for mental health treatment, almost twice the rate in other medical specialties. Up to 50% of patients who miss appointments drop out of scheduled care. Many who miss appointments because of slips and lapses later rearrange their appointments without adverse consequences. Those that do not are at risk of further deterioration, relapse and hospital readmission. Predictors of non-attendance are complex and linked with the predictors of missed medication. Service barriers and administrative errors are common but are often overlooked in the absence of feedback from patients. Of prime importance are the therapeutic alliance and degree of ‘helpfulness’ of the clinician but again these are rarely measured routinely. Useful markers of engagement include patient-rated trust, satisfaction and degree of perceived participation in treatment decisions. Much can be done to improve attendance in most services. Simple measures such as offering prompt, convenient appointments, offering reminders and augmenting with telephone contact have a reasonable evidence base. Scales to assess therapeutic alliance are now available. Complex interventions need to be evaluated carefully in order that the overall benefits outweigh costs. We suggest that clinicians consider accessibility, discharge policies and patient feedback when examining local rates of non-attendance.

show abstract

Section: Reminder and Memory Aidssupporting

confidence: 69%

Why don't patients attend their appointments? Maintaining engagement with psychiatric services

Mitchell¹,

Selmes²

2007

Adv. psychiatr. treat

244

254

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) typically involves measurement of service users’ symptoms or other outcomes regularly during an intervention, with one goal being provision of feedback to clinicians or clients regarding progress. 1 This offers the potential to adjust interventions in circumstances where the client is not making expected progress. However, ROM can also include longer-term follow-up after an individual has completed a specific episode of care, such as inpatient or residential treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Early Telephone Contact on 3-Month Follow-Up Rates following Residential Drug and Alcohol Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is an important component of service provision and qualitity assurance procedures. However, a major logistical and financial challenge for organizations is successfully following up participants once they have left residential alcohol and other drug treatment. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact and effectiveness of an “early” follow-up contact and brief interview on subsequent 3-month ROM follow-up success. Methods: Participants were 800 clients attending specialist residential alcohol and other drug treatment provided by The Salvation Army. As part of routine outcome assessment procedures, all people attending these programs are asked to complete a 3-month follow-up assessment. Participants were randomly allocated either to the early contact condition (i.e., “early” 2-week follow-up contact prior to the 3-month follow-up assessment) or to the control condition (i.e., no “early” 2-week follow-up prior to the 3-month follow-up assessment). The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were followed up and surveyed at 3 months. Results: There were significantly higher follow-up rates at 3 months post discharge for participants in the early contact group (55.6%) compared with the control condition (46.1%). Although there were higher rates of 3-month follow-up for participants in the early contact group, rates of successful survey completion were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Including an early 2-week telephone call prior to the 3-month assessment increased the number of participants we were able to follow up at 3 months post discharge but did not improve the rate of survey participation at 3 months. The additional costs associated with this activity and the modest increase in follow-up rates need to be considered prior to organizations investing in these follow-up enhancement activities.

show abstract

“…With any reminder system, there is likely to be a level of unsuccessful contact; however, poor selection of reminder systems will exacerbate this problem in to hard-to-reach groups, e.g. substance abusers, 211 older patients 108 and homeless populations. 212 …”

Section: E-mail Remindersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Targeting the Use of Reminders and Notifications for Uptake by Populations (TURNUP): a systematic review and evidence synthesis

McLean

Gee

Booth

et al. 2014

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMissed appointments are an avoidable cost and a resource inefficiency that impact on the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health-care services are increasingly utilising reminder systems to counter these negative effects.ObjectivesThis project explores the differential effect of reminder systems for different segments of the population for improving attendance, cancellation and rescheduling of appointments.DesignThree inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to theoretical explanations for appointment behaviour (review 1), the effectiveness of different approaches to reminding patients to attend health service appointments (review 2) and factors likely to influence non-attendance (review 3).Data sourcesDatabase searches were conducted on Allied and Complementary Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus with Full Text, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE (via NHS Evidence from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012), Health Management Information Consortium database, Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersXplore, The King’s Fund Library Catalogue, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012. Supplementary screening of references of included studies was conducted to identify additional potentially relevant studies. Conceptual papers were identified for review 1, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for review 2 and a range of quantitative and qualitative research designs for review 3.MethodsWe conducted three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, involving a review of conceptual frameworks of reminder systems and adherence behaviours, a review of the reminder effectiveness literature and a review informed by realist principles to explain the contexts and mechanisms that explain reminder effectiveness. A preliminary conceptual framework was developed to show how reminder systems work, for whom they work and in which circumstances. Six themes emerged that potentially influence the effectiveness of the reminder or whether or not patients would attend their appointment, namely the reminder–patient interaction, reminder accessibility, health-care settings, wider social issues, cancellation and rebookings, and distal/proxy attributes. Standardised review methods were used to investigate the effectiveness of reminders to promote attendance, cancellation or rebooking across all outpatient settings. Finally, a review informed by realist principles was undertaken, using the conceptual framework to explain the context and mechanisms that influence how reminders support attendance, cancellation and rebooking.ResultsA total of 466 papers relating to 463 studies were identified for reviews 2 and 3. Findings from 31 RCTs and 11 separate systematic reviews (review 2 only) revealed that reminder systems are consistently effective at reducing non-attendance at appointments, regardless of health-care setting or patient subgroups. Simple reminders that provide details of timing and location of appointments are effective for increasing attendance at appointments. Reminders that provide additional information over and above the date, time and location of the appointment (‘reminder plus’) may be more effective than simple reminders at reducing non-attendance and may be particularly useful for first appointments and screening appointments; simple reminders may be appropriate thereafter for most patients the majority of the time. There was strong evidence that the timing of reminders, between 1 and 7 days prior to the appointment, has no effect on attendance; substantial numbers of patients do not receive their reminder; reminders promote cancellation of appointments; inadequate structural factors prevent patients from cancelling appointments; and few studies investigated factors that influence the effectiveness of reminder systems for population subgroups.LimitationsGenerally speaking, the systematic review method seeks to provide a precise answer to a tightly focused question, for which there is a high degree of homogeneity within the studies. A wide range of population types, intervention, comparison and outcomes is included within the RCTs we identified. However, use of this wider approach offers greater analytical capability in terms of understanding contextual and mechanistic factors that would not have been evident in a more narrowly focused review and increases confidence that the findings will have relevance in a wide range of service settings.ConclusionsSimple reminders or ‘reminder plus’ should be sent to all patients in the absence of any clear contraindication. Other reminder alternatives may be relevant for key groups of patients: those from a deprived background, ethnic minorities, substance abusers and those with comorbidities and/or illnesses. We are developing a practice guideline that may help managers to further tailor their reminder systems for their service and client groups. We recommend future research activities in three main areas. First, more studies should routinely consider the potential for differential effects of reminder systems between patient groups in order to identify any inequalities and remedies. Second, ‘reminder plus’ systems appear promising, but there is a need for further research to understand how they influence attendance behaviour. Third, further research is required to identify strategies to ‘optimise’ reminder systems and compare performance with current approaches.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Maximizing patient follow‐up after alcohol treatment: The effect of a three‐step reminding system on response rates

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Why don't patients attend their appointments? Maintaining engagement with psychiatric services

Why don't patients attend their appointments? Maintaining engagement with psychiatric services

Impact of Early Telephone Contact on 3-Month Follow-Up Rates following Residential Drug and Alcohol Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Targeting the Use of Reminders and Notifications for Uptake by Populations (TURNUP): a systematic review and evidence synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About