0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

Advanced Access Scheduling Outcomes:  A Systematic Review FREE

Katherine D. Rose, MD; Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS; Leora I. Horwitz, MD, MHS
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Rose); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation and Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (Drs Ross and Horwitz).


Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1150-1159. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.168.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background Advanced (“open”) access scheduling, which promotes patient-driven scheduling in lieu of prearranged appointments, has been proposed as a more patient-centered appointment method and has been widely adopted throughout the United Kingdom, within the US Veterans Health Administration, and among US private practices.

Objective To describe patient and physician and/or practice outcomes resulting from implementation of advanced access scheduling in the primary care setting.

Data Sources Comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science) through August, 2010, supplemented by reference lists and gray literature.

Study Selection Studies were assessed in duplicate, and reviewers were blinded to author, journal, and date of publication. Controlled and uncontrolled English-language studies of advanced access implementation in primary care were eligible if they specified methods and reported outcomes data.

Data Extraction Two reviewers collaboratively assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Risk of Bias criteria. Data were independently extracted in duplicate.

Data Synthesis Twenty-eight articles describing 24 studies met eligibility criteria. All studies had at least 1 source of potential bias. All 8 studies evaluating time to third-next-available appointment showed reductions (range of decrease, 1.1-32 days), but only 2 achieved a third-next-available appointment in less than 48 hours (25%). No-show rates improved only in practices with baseline no-show rates higher than 15%. Effects on patient satisfaction were variable. Limited data addressed clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up.

Conclusions Studies of advanced access support benefits to wait time and no-show rate. However, effects on patient satisfaction were mixed, and data about clinical outcomes and loss to follow-up were lacking.

Figures in this Article

Advanced access is an appointment scheduling system that allows patients to seek and receive health care from their provider at the time of their choosing.1 Traditional scheduling systems arrange appointments for future dates, resulting in each physician's patient care time being mostly scheduled well in advance. Consequently, wait time for appointments can be long, and patients may miss long-scheduled appointments.2 In fact, the average wait time in 2009 for a new nonurgent visit with a US family practice physician was 20 days.3 By contrast, in advanced access, patients are offered an appointment on the day that they call or at the time of their choosing, preferably within 24 hours. This results in few prescheduled appointments and a relatively open schedule. Triage is minimized because everyone is offered an appointment whether for urgent or routine care.

There has been increased interest in advanced access as waiting times for routine health care have lengthened in recent years3,4 leading to negative health outcomes5 and contributing to emergency department crowding.6,7 The Institute for Healthcare Improvement8 reports working with about 3000 practices to implement advanced access. Both the US Veterans Affairs (VA) system and the United Kingdom National Health Service have implemented advanced access in their extensive networks of ambulatory practices.9,10 In 2003, 47% of National Association of Public Hospitals members reported at least piloting advanced access in their primary care clinics.11

Proponents of advanced access suggest that it reduces patient waiting times, improves continuity of care, and reduces no-show rates.1214 On the other hand, skeptics of the system point out that advanced access is difficult to implement, may instead reduce continuity of care, and may leave patients with chronic conditions lost to follow-up.11,12,15,16 Published reports of advanced access implementations are inconsistent. Therefore, given the widespread usage and promotion of advanced access and the uncertainty of its impact on physicians and patients, our objective was to summarize and evaluate the field of research examining the outcomes of advanced access scheduling systems in the primary care setting through a systematic review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES AND SEARCHES

To identify relevant articles, we searched the following databases: OVID (1950 through August 2010), Scopus (1960 through August 2010), and Web of Science (1900 through August 2010). Search strategies differed, depending on the database. In OVID, we used the keywords “open access or advanc$ access or same-day” combined with the keywords “schedul$ or appoint$.” We also used the keywords “open access or advanc$ access or same-day” combined with the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms “Primary Health Care” and “Appointments and Schedules” using the Boolean term “and.” In Scopus we altered the search terms to comply with search mechanisms and used (schedul* OR appoint*) AND (“open access” OR “advanced access” OR “advance access” OR “same day”). We used the search strategy TS = (schedul* OR appoint*) AND TS = (advanced access OR advance access OR open access) to identify articles in Web of Science. We also hand searched bibliographies of pertinent articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Full-length articles, research letters, and brief reports in English were eligible for inclusion. Of these, we included articles that (1) investigated an advanced access intervention in a primary care setting (including cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, and randomized controlled trials), (2) reported quantitative outcomes for patients and/or providers, and (3) compared intervention and nonintervention data. We excluded conference abstracts because of the preliminary nature of their data. Commentaries, editorials, and narratives not written in scientific format—ie, without a full description of methodology, study population, baseline data, or results, and with no statistical testing—were also excluded.

One investigator selected articles for review based on title and/or abstract. Two investigators then independently assessed abstracts for inclusion. Reviewers were blinded to author, journal, and date of publication. If an investigator could not make an inclusion decision based on the abstract, the full article was retrieved. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

DATA EXTRACTION AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Two investigators independently extracted data for each study using a standardized form. Main outcomes included success of advanced access implementation (time to the third-next-available appointment), physician and/or practice outcomes (no-show rate, fiscal outcomes, and provider satisfaction), and patient outcomes (patient satisfaction, continuity of care, loss to follow-up, emergency department and/or urgent care use, and chronic disease quality measures). Time to third-next-available appointment is a widely used metric for appointment availability.17 It is preferred over the time to the next available appointment because it does not give the false impression of schedule availability if there is a last-minute cancellation. When time to third-next-available appointment data were reported for both new (long) and return (short) visits, we recorded the result for the return visit. We defined continuity of care as any measure of the frequency with which patients saw their own primary care physician.1821

Studies used a variety of questions and reporting methods to describe patient satisfaction. For purposes of analysis, we divided satisfaction questions into 2 broad categories: overall satisfaction and appointment system satisfaction. Overall satisfaction included questions such as “How satisfied are you with today's visit?” Appointment system satisfaction included questions such as “Were you able to get an appointment as soon as you wanted?” or “How satisfied were you with the appointment system?”

In addition, we abstracted study characteristics and demographics including trial design, funding, country of study, practice setting, number of practices and physicians, number of patients, and length of follow-up.

There are no validated tools for assessing the quality of quality-improvement studies, which differ from standard therapeutic intervention studies in several important ways, including unit of analysis (typically provider rather than patient) and role of local context. Consequently, we adapted the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group22 risk of bias criteria to qualitatively report the risk of bias of the study results. These criteria are similar to those found in the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence23 guidelines for quality improvement reporting and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report on Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence.24 We did not consider funding because no studies were commercially funded.

DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS

The limited reporting of the trials and wide variety of outcomes evaluated precluded a meta-analysis of results; consequently, we describe results qualitatively. All study designs are reported together. We hypothesized that if advanced access were an effective strategy, then studies with more successful implementations (defined as those with shorter final time to third-next-available appointment) would be more likely to report successful physician or patient outcomes. The only outcome for which there were enough studies to examine this hypothesis was no-show rate. Consequently, to determine if the success of advanced access implementation affected outcomes, we conducted a linear regression of time to third-next-available appointment on no-show rate.

We used an Access 2002 database (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington) to conduct blinded, independent reviews of the literature, and SAS software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) to conduct the linear regression. Because this study did not consist of direct human subjects research, institutional review board approval was not required.

The initial electronic database search identified 2691 citations, of which 2556 were excluded based on title review by 1 investigator (K.D.R.) because they were not about advanced access, were set in specialty settings, were conference abstracts, or were duplicates found in multiple databases (Figure). Two independent, blinded investigators reviewed the remaining 136 article titles and abstracts for selection and excluded 74 because they were not in English (n = 1), not about advanced access (n = 27), were subspecialty studies (n = 9), were reviews, editorials, or nonresearch letters (n = 29), or did not include patient or provider outcomes related to advanced access (n = 8). Of the remaining 62 articles of advanced access implementations in the primary care setting that reported outcomes, 34 more were excluded because they were narratives not written in scientific format (n = 31) or were qualitative studies (n = 3). The resulting 28 articles are included in this systematic review. Since several interventions resulted in more than 1 published article, these 28 articles represented 24 distinct studies.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Flow diagram of search results.

Characteristics of the studies are listed in Table 1. Only 1 was a randomized trial. Most took place in the United States in adult medicine practices, and settings ranged from small private offices to large health systems. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to approximately 4 years.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Overview of Included Studies

The overall risk of bias in the studies was high (eTable 1 and eTable 2). Only 1 study randomized physician participants, and this study was subject to substantial contamination and crossover bias. The remaining studies all included self-selected intervention groups in which baseline characteristics often differed between intervention and control groups. Furthermore, at least 6 studies implemented other practice initiatives concurrently with advanced access. Fewer than half of studies reported basic measures of advanced access implementation such as time to third-next-available appointment. An overview of the results for each outcome is given in Table 2.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Selected Major Outcomes Following Advanced Access Implementation, Summary of Studies
WAIT TIME FOR AN APPOINTMENT

Eleven articles describing 8 studies reported time to third-next-available appointment, the preferred metric for appointment availability (Table 3).2529,35,38,40,4345 Advanced access implementation was associated with a decrease in time to third-next-available appointment in all studies (range, 1-32 days), and the decrease was statistically significant in all 5 studies (6 articles) in which statistical analysis was performed.25,26,29,35,43,44 Five of 8 studies achieved a mean time to third-next-available appointment of less than 5 days (63%); 2 reached less than 2 days (25%).29,35 One additional study of community health centers with advanced access scheduling found that 49% of visits were to providers whose individual average time to third-next-available appointment was 4 days or less in the previous year.41 Two multisite studies found that a greater degree of advanced access implementation was significantly associated with reductions in wait time, although the effect was small.29,46 For example, in the VA system, the degree of advanced access implementation accounted for 7% of the variance in wait time.46

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Time to Third-Next-Available Appointment

Four additional studies examined time to next appointment only31,39,47,50; 2 of these achieved an average next available appointment time of 2 days or less.31,47 The VA system as a whole, using data from over 6 million patient visits, reported an improvement in next-appointment availability from 42.9 days to 15.7 days.39

PHYSICIAN AND PRACTICE OUTCOMES

Besides wait time, the only practice outcome frequently studied was no-show rate, which was reported in 11 studies (Table 4). The change in no-show rate ranged from −24% to 0% and was significantly decreased in 5 studies.27,41,4951 Of note, 3 of these 5 studies served a population of patients with low socioeconomic status, and all 5 had relatively high baseline no-show rates (16%-43%).27,41,50

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Physician and Practice Outcomes

Seven studies reported the impact of advanced access on visit volume, physician compensation, or productivity outcomes. All reported neutral to positive results (Table 4).

PATIENT SATISFACTION

Four studies reported quantitative data pertaining to overall patient satisfaction (Table 5). Of these, 1 reported statistically significant improvement.27 Quantitative before and after data on satisfaction with the appointment system were reported in 4 studies (Table 5).27,34,36,38,46 None showed significant improvement. In 1, each 10% increase in proportion of same-day appointments was associated with an 8% reduction in satisfaction (odds ratio, 0.92 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.94).36 However, a VA survey found that patient satisfaction appeared to be higher at facilities with shorter wait times (P = .09).46

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Patient Satisfaction and Advanced Access Implementation
CONTINUITY OF CARE AND LOSS TO FOLLOW-UP

The effect of advanced access scheduling on continuity of care was explored in 9 studies using multiple methods of assessing continuity (Table 6). Only 2 studies found significant decreases in continuity.32,51 Of these, 1 noted that a provider in the advanced access group was on maternity leave during the brief 4-month period of study follow-up, potentially accounting for this finding.51

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Clinical Outcomes of Advanced Access

Loss to follow-up was rarely evaluated, and results were mixed. Two studies found no consistent difference in loss to follow-up between advanced access and traditional scheduling.25,33 One study of patients with depression found more patients had primary care follow-up after advanced access implementation (33.0% vs 15.4%) (P = .001) but also noted that fewer followed up after a mental health hospitalization (50.3% vs 65.9%) (P = .001).44 An advanced access VA practice found that 19% of geriatric patients failed to arrange follow-up appointments; however, this study did not report loss to follow-up prior to advanced access implementation.49

CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Emergency department, urgent care, and/or hospitalization rates under advanced access were quantitatively reviewed in 4 articles about 2 studies (Table 6).4345,48 Urgent care visits decreased significantly in 1 study,43 but neither study found a consistent effect on emergency department visits or hospitalizations.

Three studies examined clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. All found improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin control (2 statistically significant, but only 1 clinically significant)45,47,48; 1 found significant improvement in lipid control45; and 1 found significant worsening of blood pressure control.48 A before-after report of advanced access implementation in the VA reported dramatic improvement in a wide variety of clinical performance measures39; however, the VA implemented numerous other quality improvement activities during this period that were not accounted for.53,54 A variety of other outcomes were assessed in 1 or 2 studies each (Table 6).

EFFECT OF SUCCESS OF ADVANCED ACCESS IMPLEMENTATION ON OUTCOMES

We assessed whether outcomes were better for studies with more successful implementations (shorter time to third-next-available appointment). There was a positive but nonsignificant correlation between time to third-next-available appointment and no-show rate in the 5 studies reporting both measures (R2 = 0.69; P = .10). We were unable to perform similar analyses for other outcomes owing to lack of data.

This systematic review investigated the impact of advanced access scheduling on no-show rates, practice finances, patient satisfaction, continuity of care, health care utilization, and preventive care. In summary, among 28 articles describing 24 implementations, we found that the time to third-next-available appointment consistently decreased with advanced access scheduling, although very few studies were able to achieve same-day access. Overall, advanced access yielded neutral to small positive improvements in no-show rates, continuity, and patient satisfaction, while effects on clinical outcomes were mixed. It is worth noting that these studies report outcomes of advanced access as it has been applied in working practices. The limited nature of the benefits might therefore not be attributable to a failure of the advanced access scheduling itself so much as imperfect implementation (as evidenced by the limited number of studies that were able to achieve same-day access). Nonetheless, since most clinicians would not be likely to apply this intervention in a randomized controlled trial setting, it is useful to examine its real-world effectiveness.

Any systematic review is dependent on the quality of the studies it evaluates. The studies included in this analysis were rarely conducted in a rigorous fashion. Only 1 was a randomized trial, and only 6 others had a concurrent control group. The remaining studies were conducted in a before-after fashion without accounting for secular trends or other concurrent quality-improvement initiatives, making it impossible to isolate the effect of advanced access scheduling on outcomes. This was particularly problematic for the 3 studies set in the VA system and the 4 studies of practices participating in Institute for Healthcare Improvement programs, in which numerous concurrent quality-improvement activities were undertaken. Moreover, the limited reporting of most studies made it difficult to assess the level of advanced access achieved, while lack of statistical analysis often made it difficult to interpret the results. Very few studies included outcomes of clinical relevance.37,44,45,48,51 The wide variety of practice settings combined with the paucity of data about most outcomes prohibited us from distinguishing which effects were attributable to advanced access itself vs to local context and variability in implementation. Finally, publication bias is always of concern, although we did identify both positive and negative reports.

Although time to third-next-available appointment declined in all studies, one of the most striking findings was the low number of practices that achieved true same-day access. Only a quarter of studies reporting time to third-next-available appointment achieved 2-day access. It is possible that some of the 16 studies that did not report time to third-next-available appointment achieved successful implementations, and it is also possible that individual sites within multisite studies were successful. Nonetheless, on balance, our results suggest that successful implementation of this scheduling system is challenging. Reasons provided by authors for failure included increased demand of new patients owing to physician shortages, difficulty scheduling physicians to match demand, provider resistance to same-day scheduling, unexpected decreases in appointment supply owing to provider illness or departure, expected changes in supply such as maternity leave and vacations, and irregular schedules of medical trainees.16,25,38 Strategies to overcome these predictable roadblocks have been described,12,13,55 but they do not seem to have been readily implemented in practice.

No-show rates declined as time to third-next-available appointment declined. However, improvements in no-show rates were less robust than those observed in time to third-next-available appointment and were chiefly seen in studies of underserved populations with a high baseline no-show rate. For practices with lower baseline no-show rates, advanced access did not appear to provide significant benefit. It is possible that there is a “floor” no-show rate below which improvements are unlikely. Regardless, advanced access did not provide the large benefits to no-show rates that have been theoretically postulated.

Surveys show that health care providers fear that advanced access will decrease continuity if patients are encouraged to be seen immediately by whichever physician is available.16 Our results do not support this concern. Continuity of care decreased markedly in only 1 of 7 studies, a residency site in which irregular house staff schedules made continuity of care extremely challenging when appointments could not be prebooked.51 Conversely, proponents of advanced access contend that the system will improve continuity by improving each provider's availability.12,56 Our findings only partially support this theory: advanced access improved continuity in only half of the studies, and in 1 study, the improvement in continuity was only weakly associated with improvements in wait time.45

Despite the nearly universal reduction in wait time, patient satisfaction with overall care or with the scheduling system did not consistently improve. Clinicians often assume that shorter wait times for appointments will automatically lead to improved patient satisfaction. In the VA system, patient satisfaction was positively correlated with shorter wait times.46 However, numerous surveys of patients in the United Kingdom have found that scheduling an appointment at a convenient time is more important to patients than speed of access, unless they are presenting with a new health problem.34,5759 These results are consistent among working patients, patients with chronic illness, women, and older patients.58 Furthermore, one survey found that patients were no more likely to get the type of appointment they wanted (eg, with a particular provider, provider type, or time) in practices with the advanced access system than in those with conventional scheduling systems.34 In fact, satisfaction decreased 8% for every 10% increase in same-day appointments available.36 Thus, a strict focus on reducing wait time for appointments by embargoing appointments—such as has been reported in the National Health Service60—may not be a patient-centered approach to improving scheduling systems. Although this is not the intent of advanced access, which should be able to accommodate requests for appointments, qualitative studies have found that real-world implementations of advanced access often focus on same-day access to the exclusion of other core principles.61

While advanced access was not designed to improve clinical outcomes per se, as with any intervention it is necessary to ensure that it does not harm patients. Additionally, since prompt care and continuity improve clinical outcomes,6265 advanced access might be expected to have clinical benefits. Few studies evaluated clinical outcomes, and here the results were mixed. Of the 4 studies analyzing emergency department and/or urgent care use, only 1 showed a decrease in use of these services. Diabetes care was unaffected or mildly improved.45 On-time immunization rates for children were unchanged.51 Overall, it does not appear that advanced access in itself is a particularly robust method of improving clinical outcomes. However, we found no compelling evidence of harm.

On the other hand, we did find some evidence to support the concern that some patients may be more likely to be lost to follow-up in an advanced access system.29 In one study, nearly one-fifth of geriatric patients failed to make follow-up appointments as requested, although preintervention data were not presented.49 While our systematic review focused on primary care only, a specialty care practice implementing advanced access noted that 50% of patients failed to call for follow-up appointments, indicating that losing patients to follow-up is of concern in specialty settings as well.66

As advanced access scheduling gains popularity, it is important to have a realistic expectation of its potential benefits.67 We found that most practices attempting advanced access reduce wait time substantially, although few achieve same-day access. For practices with high no-show rates, advanced access appears to yield marked improvements; however, it is less effective for practices with lower baseline no-show rates. Patient satisfaction does not consistently improve and may be contingent on how the advanced access model is applied. Most importantly, data about clinical outcomes and potential harm such as loss to follow-up are lacking. A large randomized trial of open-access scheduling that includes patient outcomes such as satisfaction, continuity of care, quality of care, and health care utilization, along with a rigorous assessment of loss to follow-up, would be valuable to further our understanding of the utility of this scheduling system.

Correspondence: Leora I. Horwitz, MD, MHS, Section of General Internal Medicine, PO Box 208093, New Haven, CT 06520-8093 (leora.horwitz@yale.edu).

Accepted for Publication: February 21, 2011.

Published Online: April 25, 2011. doi:10.1001/archinternmed .2011.168

Author Contributions: Dr Horwitz had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Rose and Horwitz. Acquisition of data: Rose and Ross. Analysis and interpretation of data: Rose, Ross, and Horwitz. Drafting of the manuscript: Rose and Horwitz. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Ross. Statistical analysis: Horwitz. Administrative, technical, and material support: Horwitz. Study supervision: Horwitz.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by Clinical and Translational Science Award No. UL1 RR024139 from the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research (Dr Horwitz), and by grants K08AG032886 and K08AG038336 from the National Institute on Aging and by the Paul B. Beeson Career Development Award Program, American Federation of Aging Research (Drs Ross and Horwitz).

Role of the Sponsors: No funding source had any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Previous Presentation: An earlier version of this work was presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine 31st Annual Meeting; April 10, 2008; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Murray M, Tantau C. Redefining open access to primary care.  Manag Care Q. 1999;7(3):45-55
PubMed
George A, Rubin G. Non-attendance in general practice: a systematic review and its implications for access to primary health care.  Fam Pract. 2003;20(2):178-184
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Merritt HA. Summary report: 2009 survey of physician appointment wait times. http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2011
Trude S, Ginsburg PB. An update on Medicare beneficiary access to physician services.  Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2005;2(93):1-4
PubMed
Prentice JC, Pizer SD. Delayed access to health care and mortality.  Health Serv Res. 2007;42(2):644-662
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rust G, Ye J, Baltrus P, Daniels E, Adesunloye B, Fryer GE. Practical barriers to timely primary care access: impact on adult use of emergency department services.  Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(15):1705-1710
PubMed   |  Link to Article
California HealthCare Foundation.  Overuse of emergency departments among insured Californians. http://www.chcf.org/publications/2006/10/overuse-of-emergency-departments-among-insured-californians. Accessed November 1, 2010
Institute for Healthcare Improvement.  Advanced access: reducing waits, delays and frustrations in Maine. See website here. Accessed July 20, 2010
Pulse.  Government issues advanced access demand. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=4116322. Accessed February 8, 2011
The Scottish Government.  GP Patient experience survey access results for practices 2010. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/924/0099312.pdf. Accessed February 8, 2011
Singer IA, Regenstein M. Advanced Access: Ambulatory Care Redesign and the Nation's Safety Net. Washington, DC: National Association of Public Hospitals; 2003
Murray M, Tantau C. Same-day appointments: exploding the access paradigm.  Fam Pract Manag. 2000;7(8):45-50
PubMed
Murray M. Patient care: access.  BMJ. 2000;320(7249):1594-1596
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Boelke C, Boushon B, Isensee S. Achieving open access: the road to improved service & satisfaction.  Med Group Manage J. 2000;47(5):58-62, 64-66, 68
PubMed
Salisbury C. Evaluating open access: problems with the program or the studies?  Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(12):910-911, author reply 911
PubMed
Ahluwalia S, Offredy M. A qualitative study of the impact of the implementation of advanced access in primary healthcare on the working lives of general practice staff.  BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6:39
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Murray M, Berwick DM. Advanced access: reducing waiting and delays in primary care.  JAMA. 2003;289(8):1035-1040
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bice TW, Boxerman SB. A quantitative measure of continuity of care.  Med Care. 1977;15(4):347-349
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Given CW, Branson M, Zemach R. Evaluation and application of continuity measures in primary care settings.  J Community Health. 1985;10(1):22-41
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Magill MK, Senf J. A new method for measuring continuity of care in family practice residencies.  J Fam Pract. 1987;24(2):165-168
PubMed
Patten RC, Friberg R. Measuring continuity of care in a family practice residency program.  J Fam Pract. 1980;11(1):67-71
PubMed
Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group.  Risk of bias criteria. http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-resources-review-authors. Accessed September 7, 2010
Ogrinc G, Mooney SE, Estrada C,  et al.  The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration.  Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:(Suppl 1)  i13-i32
PubMed   |  Link to Article
West S, King V, Carey TS,  et al.  Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2002;3(47):1-11
PubMed
Belardi FG, Weir S, Craig FW. A controlled trial of an advanced access appointment system in a residency family medicine center.  Fam Med. 2004;36(5):341-345
PubMed
Bennett KJ, Baxley EG. The effect of a carve-out advanced access scheduling system on no-show rates.  Fam Med. 2009;41(1):51-56
PubMed
Bundy DG, Randolph GD, Murray M, Anderson J, Margolis PA. Open access in primary care: results of a North Carolina pilot project.  Pediatrics. 2005;116(1):82-87
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dixon S, Sampson FC, O’Cathain A, Pickin M. Advanced access: more than just GP waiting times?  Fam Pract. 2006;23(2):233-239
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pickin M, O’Cathain A, Sampson FC, Dixon S. Evaluation of advanced access in the national primary care collaborative.  Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(502):334-340
PubMed
Kennedy JG, Hsu JT. Implementation of an open access scheduling system in a residency training program.  Fam Med. 2003;35(9):666-670
PubMed
Meyers ML. Changing business practices for appointing in military outpatient medical clinics: the case for a true “open access” appointment scheme for primary care.  J Healthc Manag. 2003;48(2):125-139
PubMed
Phan K, Brown SR. Decreased continuity in a residency clinic: a consequence of open access scheduling.  Fam Med. 2009;41(1):46-50
PubMed
Rohrer JE, Bernard M, Naessens J, Furst J, Kircher K, Adamson S. Impact of open-access scheduling on realized access.  Health Serv Manage Res. 2007;20(2):134-139
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Salisbury C, Goodall S, Montgomery AA,  et al.  Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.  Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(541):615-621
PubMed
Salisbury C, Montgomery AA, Simons L,  et al.  Impact of Advanced Access on access, workload, and continuity: controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study.  Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(541):608-614
PubMed
Sampson F, Pickin M, O’Cathain A, Goodall S, Salisbury C. Impact of same-day appointments on patient satisfaction with general practice appointment systems.  Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(554):641-643
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pickin M, O’Cathain A, Sampson F, Salisbury C, Nicholl J. The impact of Advanced Access on antibiotic prescribing: a controlled before and after study.  Fam Pract. 2010;27(5):554-555
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mehrotra A, Keehl-Markowitz L, Ayanian JZ. Implementing open-access scheduling of visits in primary care practices: a cautionary tale.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):915-922
PubMed
Armstrong B, Levesque O, Perlin JB, Rick C, Schectman G. Reinventing Veterans Health Administration: focus on primary care.  J Healthc Manag. 2005;50(6):399-408, discussion 409
PubMed
Boushon B, Provost L, Gagnon J, Carver P. Using a virtual breakthrough series collaborative to improve access in primary care.  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32(10):573-584
PubMed
Lasser KE, Mintzer IL, Lambert A, Cabral H, Bor DH. Missed appointment rates in primary care: the importance of site of care.  J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005;16(3):475-486
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lewandowski S, O’Connor PJ, Solberg LI, Lais T, Hroscikoski M, Sperl-Hillen JM. Increasing primary care physician productivity: a case study.  Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(10):573-576
PubMed
Solberg LI, Maciosek MV, Sperl-Hillen JM,  et al.  Does improved access to care affect utilization and costs for patients with chronic conditions?  Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(10):717-722
PubMed
Solberg LI, Crain AL, Sperl-Hillen JM, Hroscikoski MC, Engebretson KI, O’Connor PJ. Effect of improved primary care access on quality of depression care.  Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(1):69-74
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sperl-Hillen JM, Solberg LI, Hroscikoski MC, Crain AL, Engebretson KI, O’Connor PJ. The effect of advanced access implementation on quality of diabetes care.  Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(1):A16
PubMed
Lukas CV, Meterko M, Mohr D, Seibert MN. The implementation and effectiveness of advanced clinic access. http://www.colmr.research.va.gov/publications/reports/ACA_FullReport.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2010
Radel SJ, Norman AM, Notaro JC, Horrigan DR. Redesigning clinical office practices to improve performance levels in an individual practice association model HMO.  J Healthc Qual. 2001;23(2):11-15, quiz 15, 52
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Subramanian U, Ackermann RT, Brizendine EJ,  et al.  Effect of advanced access scheduling on processes and intermediate outcomes of diabetes care and utilization.  J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(3):327-333
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cherniack EP, Sandals L, Gillespie D, Maymi E, Aguilar E. The use of open-access scheduling for the elderly.  J Healthc Qual. 2007;29(6):45-48
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mallard SD, Leakeas T, Duncan WJ, Fleenor ME, Sinsky RJ. Same-day scheduling in a public health clinic: a pilot study.  J Public Health Manag Pract. 2004;10(2):148-155
PubMed
O’Connor ME, Matthews BS, Gao D. Effect of open access scheduling on missed appointments, immunizations, and continuity of care for infant well-child care visits.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(9):889-893
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parente DH, Pinto MB, Barber JC. A pre-post comparison of service operational efficiency and patient satisfaction under open access scheduling.  Health Care Manage Rev. 2005;30(3):220-228
PubMed
Kizer KW, Demakis JG, Feussner JR. Reinventing VA health care: systematizing quality improvement and quality innovation.  Med Care. 2000;38(6):(Suppl 1)  I7-I16
PubMed
Jha AK, Perlin JB, Kizer KW, Dudley RA. Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care.  N Engl J Med. 2003;348(22):2218-2227
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Murray M, Bodenheimer T, Rittenhouse D, Grumbach K. Improving timely access to primary care: case studies of the advanced access model.  JAMA. 2003;289(8):1042-1046
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tantau C. Accessing patient-centered care using the advanced access model.  J Ambul Care Manage. 2009;32(1):32-43
PubMed
Gerard K, Salisbury C, Street D, Pope C, Baxter H. Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? a discrete choice experiment of patients' preferences.  J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:(Suppl 2)  3-10
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rubin G, Bate A, George A, Shackley P, Hall N. Preferences for access to the GP: a discrete choice experiment.  Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56(531):743-748
PubMed
Pascoe SW, Neal RD, Allgar VL. Open-access versus bookable appointment systems: survey of patients attending appointments with general practitioners.  Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(502):367-369
PubMed
BBC News.  Patients denied advance bookings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4112390.stm. Accessed July 29, 2010
Pope C, Banks J, Salisbury C, Lattimer V. Improving access to primary care: eight case studies of introducing Advanced Access in England.  J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(1):33-39
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mercer CH, Sutcliffe L, Johnson AM,  et al.  How much do delayed healthcare seeking, delayed care provision, and diversion from primary care contribute to the transmission of STIs?  Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83(5):400-405
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saultz JW, Lochner J. Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review.  Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(2):159-166
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cheng SH, Chen CC, Hou YF. A longitudinal examination of continuity of care and avoidable hospitalization: evidence from a universal coverage health care system.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(18):1671-1677
PubMed   |  Link to Article
van Walraven C, Taljaard M, Etchells E,  et al.  The independent association of provider and information continuity on outcomes after hospital discharge: implications for hospitalists.  J Hosp Med. 2010;5(7):398-405
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Newman ED, Harrington TM, Olenginski TP, Perruquet JL, McKinley K. “The rheumatologist can see you now”: successful implementation of an advanced access model in a rheumatology practice.  Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51(2):253-257
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Auerbach AD, Landefeld CS, Shojania KG. The tension between needing to improve care and knowing how to do it.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(6):608-613
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Flow diagram of search results.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Overview of Included Studies
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Selected Major Outcomes Following Advanced Access Implementation, Summary of Studies
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Time to Third-Next-Available Appointment
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Physician and Practice Outcomes
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Patient Satisfaction and Advanced Access Implementation
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Clinical Outcomes of Advanced Access

References

Murray M, Tantau C. Redefining open access to primary care.  Manag Care Q. 1999;7(3):45-55
PubMed
George A, Rubin G. Non-attendance in general practice: a systematic review and its implications for access to primary health care.  Fam Pract. 2003;20(2):178-184
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Merritt HA. Summary report: 2009 survey of physician appointment wait times. http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2011
Trude S, Ginsburg PB. An update on Medicare beneficiary access to physician services.  Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2005;2(93):1-4
PubMed
Prentice JC, Pizer SD. Delayed access to health care and mortality.  Health Serv Res. 2007;42(2):644-662
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rust G, Ye J, Baltrus P, Daniels E, Adesunloye B, Fryer GE. Practical barriers to timely primary care access: impact on adult use of emergency department services.  Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(15):1705-1710
PubMed   |  Link to Article
California HealthCare Foundation.  Overuse of emergency departments among insured Californians. http://www.chcf.org/publications/2006/10/overuse-of-emergency-departments-among-insured-californians. Accessed November 1, 2010
Institute for Healthcare Improvement.  Advanced access: reducing waits, delays and frustrations in Maine. See website here. Accessed July 20, 2010
Pulse.  Government issues advanced access demand. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=4116322. Accessed February 8, 2011
The Scottish Government.  GP Patient experience survey access results for practices 2010. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/924/0099312.pdf. Accessed February 8, 2011
Singer IA, Regenstein M. Advanced Access: Ambulatory Care Redesign and the Nation's Safety Net. Washington, DC: National Association of Public Hospitals; 2003
Murray M, Tantau C. Same-day appointments: exploding the access paradigm.  Fam Pract Manag. 2000;7(8):45-50
PubMed
Murray M. Patient care: access.  BMJ. 2000;320(7249):1594-1596
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Boelke C, Boushon B, Isensee S. Achieving open access: the road to improved service & satisfaction.  Med Group Manage J. 2000;47(5):58-62, 64-66, 68
PubMed
Salisbury C. Evaluating open access: problems with the program or the studies?  Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(12):910-911, author reply 911
PubMed
Ahluwalia S, Offredy M. A qualitative study of the impact of the implementation of advanced access in primary healthcare on the working lives of general practice staff.  BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6:39
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Murray M, Berwick DM. Advanced access: reducing waiting and delays in primary care.  JAMA. 2003;289(8):1035-1040
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bice TW, Boxerman SB. A quantitative measure of continuity of care.  Med Care. 1977;15(4):347-349
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Given CW, Branson M, Zemach R. Evaluation and application of continuity measures in primary care settings.  J Community Health. 1985;10(1):22-41
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Magill MK, Senf J. A new method for measuring continuity of care in family practice residencies.  J Fam Pract. 1987;24(2):165-168
PubMed
Patten RC, Friberg R. Measuring continuity of care in a family practice residency program.  J Fam Pract. 1980;11(1):67-71
PubMed
Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group.  Risk of bias criteria. http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-resources-review-authors. Accessed September 7, 2010
Ogrinc G, Mooney SE, Estrada C,  et al.  The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration.  Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:(Suppl 1)  i13-i32
PubMed   |  Link to Article
West S, King V, Carey TS,  et al.  Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2002;3(47):1-11
PubMed
Belardi FG, Weir S, Craig FW. A controlled trial of an advanced access appointment system in a residency family medicine center.  Fam Med. 2004;36(5):341-345
PubMed
Bennett KJ, Baxley EG. The effect of a carve-out advanced access scheduling system on no-show rates.  Fam Med. 2009;41(1):51-56
PubMed
Bundy DG, Randolph GD, Murray M, Anderson J, Margolis PA. Open access in primary care: results of a North Carolina pilot project.  Pediatrics. 2005;116(1):82-87
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dixon S, Sampson FC, O’Cathain A, Pickin M. Advanced access: more than just GP waiting times?  Fam Pract. 2006;23(2):233-239
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pickin M, O’Cathain A, Sampson FC, Dixon S. Evaluation of advanced access in the national primary care collaborative.  Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(502):334-340
PubMed
Kennedy JG, Hsu JT. Implementation of an open access scheduling system in a residency training program.  Fam Med. 2003;35(9):666-670
PubMed
Meyers ML. Changing business practices for appointing in military outpatient medical clinics: the case for a true “open access” appointment scheme for primary care.  J Healthc Manag. 2003;48(2):125-139
PubMed
Phan K, Brown SR. Decreased continuity in a residency clinic: a consequence of open access scheduling.  Fam Med. 2009;41(1):46-50
PubMed
Rohrer JE, Bernard M, Naessens J, Furst J, Kircher K, Adamson S. Impact of open-access scheduling on realized access.  Health Serv Manage Res. 2007;20(2):134-139
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Salisbury C, Goodall S, Montgomery AA,  et al.  Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.  Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(541):615-621
PubMed
Salisbury C, Montgomery AA, Simons L,  et al.  Impact of Advanced Access on access, workload, and continuity: controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study.  Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(541):608-614
PubMed
Sampson F, Pickin M, O’Cathain A, Goodall S, Salisbury C. Impact of same-day appointments on patient satisfaction with general practice appointment systems.  Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(554):641-643
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pickin M, O’Cathain A, Sampson F, Salisbury C, Nicholl J. The impact of Advanced Access on antibiotic prescribing: a controlled before and after study.  Fam Pract. 2010;27(5):554-555
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mehrotra A, Keehl-Markowitz L, Ayanian JZ. Implementing open-access scheduling of visits in primary care practices: a cautionary tale.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):915-922
PubMed
Armstrong B, Levesque O, Perlin JB, Rick C, Schectman G. Reinventing Veterans Health Administration: focus on primary care.  J Healthc Manag. 2005;50(6):399-408, discussion 409
PubMed
Boushon B, Provost L, Gagnon J, Carver P. Using a virtual breakthrough series collaborative to improve access in primary care.  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32(10):573-584
PubMed
Lasser KE, Mintzer IL, Lambert A, Cabral H, Bor DH. Missed appointment rates in primary care: the importance of site of care.  J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005;16(3):475-486
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lewandowski S, O’Connor PJ, Solberg LI, Lais T, Hroscikoski M, Sperl-Hillen JM. Increasing primary care physician productivity: a case study.  Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(10):573-576
PubMed
Solberg LI, Maciosek MV, Sperl-Hillen JM,  et al.  Does improved access to care affect utilization and costs for patients with chronic conditions?  Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(10):717-722
PubMed
Solberg LI, Crain AL, Sperl-Hillen JM, Hroscikoski MC, Engebretson KI, O’Connor PJ. Effect of improved primary care access on quality of depression care.  Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(1):69-74
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sperl-Hillen JM, Solberg LI, Hroscikoski MC, Crain AL, Engebretson KI, O’Connor PJ. The effect of advanced access implementation on quality of diabetes care.  Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(1):A16
PubMed
Lukas CV, Meterko M, Mohr D, Seibert MN. The implementation and effectiveness of advanced clinic access. http://www.colmr.research.va.gov/publications/reports/ACA_FullReport.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2010
Radel SJ, Norman AM, Notaro JC, Horrigan DR. Redesigning clinical office practices to improve performance levels in an individual practice association model HMO.  J Healthc Qual. 2001;23(2):11-15, quiz 15, 52
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Subramanian U, Ackermann RT, Brizendine EJ,  et al.  Effect of advanced access scheduling on processes and intermediate outcomes of diabetes care and utilization.  J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(3):327-333
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cherniack EP, Sandals L, Gillespie D, Maymi E, Aguilar E. The use of open-access scheduling for the elderly.  J Healthc Qual. 2007;29(6):45-48
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mallard SD, Leakeas T, Duncan WJ, Fleenor ME, Sinsky RJ. Same-day scheduling in a public health clinic: a pilot study.  J Public Health Manag Pract. 2004;10(2):148-155
PubMed
O’Connor ME, Matthews BS, Gao D. Effect of open access scheduling on missed appointments, immunizations, and continuity of care for infant well-child care visits.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(9):889-893
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Parente DH, Pinto MB, Barber JC. A pre-post comparison of service operational efficiency and patient satisfaction under open access scheduling.  Health Care Manage Rev. 2005;30(3):220-228
PubMed
Kizer KW, Demakis JG, Feussner JR. Reinventing VA health care: systematizing quality improvement and quality innovation.  Med Care. 2000;38(6):(Suppl 1)  I7-I16
PubMed
Jha AK, Perlin JB, Kizer KW, Dudley RA. Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care.  N Engl J Med. 2003;348(22):2218-2227
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Murray M, Bodenheimer T, Rittenhouse D, Grumbach K. Improving timely access to primary care: case studies of the advanced access model.  JAMA. 2003;289(8):1042-1046
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tantau C. Accessing patient-centered care using the advanced access model.  J Ambul Care Manage. 2009;32(1):32-43
PubMed
Gerard K, Salisbury C, Street D, Pope C, Baxter H. Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? a discrete choice experiment of patients' preferences.  J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:(Suppl 2)  3-10
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rubin G, Bate A, George A, Shackley P, Hall N. Preferences for access to the GP: a discrete choice experiment.  Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56(531):743-748
PubMed
Pascoe SW, Neal RD, Allgar VL. Open-access versus bookable appointment systems: survey of patients attending appointments with general practitioners.  Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(502):367-369
PubMed
BBC News.  Patients denied advance bookings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4112390.stm. Accessed July 29, 2010
Pope C, Banks J, Salisbury C, Lattimer V. Improving access to primary care: eight case studies of introducing Advanced Access in England.  J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(1):33-39
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mercer CH, Sutcliffe L, Johnson AM,  et al.  How much do delayed healthcare seeking, delayed care provision, and diversion from primary care contribute to the transmission of STIs?  Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83(5):400-405
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saultz JW, Lochner J. Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review.  Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(2):159-166
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cheng SH, Chen CC, Hou YF. A longitudinal examination of continuity of care and avoidable hospitalization: evidence from a universal coverage health care system.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(18):1671-1677
PubMed   |  Link to Article
van Walraven C, Taljaard M, Etchells E,  et al.  The independent association of provider and information continuity on outcomes after hospital discharge: implications for hospitalists.  J Hosp Med. 2010;5(7):398-405
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Newman ED, Harrington TM, Olenginski TP, Perruquet JL, McKinley K. “The rheumatologist can see you now”: successful implementation of an advanced access model in a rheumatology practice.  Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51(2):253-257
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Auerbach AD, Landefeld CS, Shojania KG. The tension between needing to improve care and knowing how to do it.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(6):608-613
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Open Access Scheduling Reply
Posted on June 2, 2011
George P. Valko, MD
Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
As one of the first academic Family Medicine practices to implement advanced open access scheduling (and which is still in use since 2002), I welcome the article by Rose et al entitled Advanced Access Scheduling Outcomes: A Systematic Review Arch Intern Medicine published online April 25, 2011. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.168. I would like to offer a few comments. Although many studies look at the no-show rate or 3rd next available appointment as markers of success, I find that it is also helpful to look at the overall arrival rate as another marker, which has improved in our large practice initially and remained steady over the years despite changes in the no-show rate; this has translated into improved productivity. What we think may be happening is that number of patients “game the system” knowing that OA works well enough that they can obtain another appointment quickly if they no-show or cancel immediately before their appointment. It has been our policy that we would rather have a filled appointment slot than “punish” a patient for a no-show and leave an appointment time empty. Also, unpublished but peer-presented data showed that patient continuity with their own primary care provider was maintained at 85% for attendings and 61% for PGY1s-3s. There was unfortunately no pre-open access continuity data and this measurement has not been repeated for a few years because of its success. We also have evidence that the further away a patient is scheduled from the time they call for an appointment the more likely they will no-show. Lastly, any scheduling system strains if there is too much demand versus the supply, whether that supply is decreased because of illness, vacation, or attrition. In our case, we seem to outperform the competition for those patients who are looking for a new doctor and get appointments much more quickly than traditionally scheduled practices; therefore one must keep up with the infrastructure and staffing. As part of on overall access improvement that is part of our NCQA Level 3 PCMH, we believe that advanced open access is a benefit to our practice and patients. George Valko, M.D. Gustave and Valla Amsterdam Professor of Family and Community Medicine Vice-Chair for Clinical Programs, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University
“Open Access Scheduling in a Large, Urban, Academic Practice: Four Years of Success” - 39th STFM: Annual Spring Conference, San Francisco, California April 27, 2006
Valko GP: Open Access Scheduling. In Nash DB, Skoufalos, A, Hartman, M, Horwitz, H (eds) practicing medicine in the 21st century, American College of Physician Executives, 243-255, October, 2006.
Valko GP: “Open Access Curriculum” Society of Teachers of Family Medicine: Future of Family Medicine Task Force’s Competency Based Curriculum. Family Medicine Digital Resource Library

Conflict of Interest: I have been asked to give a paid 1 hour seminar June 23, 2011 for IHI on our success with open access scheduling.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Advanced Access Scheduling Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Arch Intern Med.2011;171(13):1150-1159.eTables

eTables -Download PDF (30 KB). This file requires Adobe Reader®.

eTable 1. Risk of bias for RCTs, controlled before-after and cross-sectional studies

eTable 2. Risk of bias for uncontrolled before-after studies

eReferences
Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 22

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles