The online outpatient booking system ‘Choose and Book’ improves attendance rates at an audiology clinic: A comparative audit
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The 'Choose and Book' system provides an online booking service which primary care professionals can book in real time or soon after a patient's consultation. It aims to offer patients choice and improve outpatient clinic attendance rates. OBJECTIVE: An audit comparing attendance rates of new patients booked into the Audiological Medicine Clinic using the 'Choose and Book' system with that of those whose bookings were made through the traditional booking system. METHODS: Data accrued between 1 April 2008 and 31 October 2008 were retrospectively analysed for new patient attendance at the department, and the age and sex of the patients, method of appointment booking used and attendance record were collected. Patients were grouped according to booking system used - 'Choose and Book' or the traditional system. The mean ages of the groups were compared by a t test. The standard error of the difference between proportions was used to compare the data from the two groups. A P value of < or = 0.05 was considered to be significant. RESULTS: 'Choose and Book' patients had a significantly better rate of attendance than traditional appointment patients, P < 0.01 (95% CI 4.3, 20.5%). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of sex, P > 0.1 (95% CI-3.0, 16.2%). The 'Choose and Book' patients, however, were significantly older than the traditional appointment patients, P < 0.001 (95% CI 4.35, 12.95%). CONCLUSION: This audit suggests that when primary care agents book outpatient clinic appointments online it improves outpatient attendance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a UK audit (n=416) of Choose and Book, 30.2% of patients booked traditionally did not attend, compared with 17.8% of those who used the electronic system.
“Among patients booked in the traditional mode, 30.2% did not attend, compared with 17.8% among those who used the electronic system.”
From The Empirical Foundations of Telemedicine Interventions in Primary Care (2016) · cites this paper as [94]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Empirical Foundations of Telemedicine Interventions in Primary Care
Bashshur, R. L., Howell, J. D., Krupinski, E. A., Harms, K. M., Bashshur, N., & Doarn, C. R. (2016) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2016.0045 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
- Authors
- Parmar, V., Large, A., Madden, C., & Das, V.
- Affiliations
- Manchester Royal Infirmary (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
- Publisher
- Portico
- Published
- 2009-09-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 183-186
- ISSN
- 1475-9985 (ISSN-L)
- 2058-4555
- OpenAlex
- W141478584
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doaj.org
- Licence
- cc-by-sa
- Locations
- Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- online appointment booking, outpatient visits, audiology clinic, patient choice, appointment booking system, patient age
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Appointments and Schedules, Audiology, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Internet, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review