Ideas for improving the preop process.

OBJECTIVE: A pilot study was conducted to undertake a baseline assessment of errors reported in community optometric practice. The feasibility and acceptability of a method for recording staff-reported errors in optometric community practice was investigated. DESIGN: An anonymous self-reporting system was introduced in order to collect information regarding errors/untoward events in community optometric practice. SETTING: UK community optometric practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification of errors according to a previously published study pertaining to general medical practice in the same geographical area. RESULTS: Thirty-six notebooks were distributed to 10 participating community optometric practices. At the end of the 1 month study period the note books were returned and the 439 entries made were classified into seven categories: optical prescriptions (18.2%), communication (35.5%), administrative (15%), appointments (2.3%), equipment (11.9%), clinical (10.3%) and other (6.9%). CONCLUSION: A previously developed classification of errors in general medical practice was found to be equally applicable to community optometric practice. This study forms the basis of providing an acceptable and practical methodology, which can be applied by Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) when developing their risk management strategy to include optometry.

Appointments and Schedules↗

PubMed2006

The effect of telephone appointment-reminder calls on outpatient absenteeism in a pulmonary function laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Absenteeism from outpatient appointments is common. Telephone appointment-reminder calls reduce outpatient-appointment absenteeism in many clinic settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine if telephone appointment-reminder calls reduce outpatient absenteeism at a hospital-based pulmonary function laboratory. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our pulmonary function laboratory's outpatient appointment records from April to November 2004. Data were collected from consecutive outpatient appointments, including patient age, sex, whether a telephone appointment-reminder call was successfully made, and whether the patient showed up for the scheduled test. We performed 3 analyses. Differences in absenteeism between the groups was the primary outcome measure. First, appointments were separated into 2 groups: (1) appointments for which a reminder call was attempted ("called" group) and (2) appointments for which a reminder call was not attempted ("not-called" group). The appointments were then separated into 2 further groups: (1) the reminder call was successfully achieved ("contacted" group) and (2) the patient either was not called or was called but could not be reached ("not-contacted" group). Finally, the contacted group was separated into 2 further groups: (1) reminder calls that resulted in direct conversation with an appropriate person at the patient's listed telephone number, and (2) reminder message left on an answering machine. RESULTS: Data were collected from 515 consecutive outpatient appointments; 45 (8.7%) of these patients did not show up for testing. The absentee rate was 4.7% (n = 10) in the called group and 11.6% (n = 35) in the not-called group (p = 0.0066). In the called group, 6.5% (n = 14) could not be reached. The absentee rate was 4% (n = 8) in the contacted group and 11.7% (n = 37) in the not-contacted group (p = 0.0021). We found no difference in absenteeism between patients who received reminders via direct conversation (4.2%) and those who had a reminder message left on an answering machine (3.7%) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A policy of reminding outpatients of their appointments via telephone reduces absenteeism at a hospital-based pulmonary function laboratory. We found no difference in absenteeism between communicating the reminder via direct conversation versus via leaving a message on an answering machine.

Appointments and Schedules↗