RT Journal
A1 Solberg LI
T1 Advanced access—fad or important?: Comment on “advanced access scheduling outcomes”
JF Archives of Internal Medicine
JO Archives of Internal Medicine
YR 2011
FD July 11
VO 171
IS 13
SP 1159
OP 1160
DO 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.169
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.169
AB 
Advanced access (AA) burst onto the primary care redesign scene over 10 years ago, led by Murray and Berwick1 and Murray and Tantau,2- 3 who helped several medical groups implement it and became key advocates and facilitators for its spread. This disruptive innovation in scheduling was widely accepted for multiple reasons: (1) health care was ready for any change that might improve patient satisfaction; (2) AA provided advantages for clinicians and clinic staff as well as patients; and (3) Murray, Berwick, and Tantau provided very specific tools and actions needed to implement it. This readiness for the AA change was reinforced in 2001, when the now famous report from the Institute of Medicine,4 “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” called for attention to 6 domains of quality, including timeliness.