Urology practice · 2025
Analysis of Factors Associated With Patient No-Shows to Ambulatory Urology Appointments.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liao Ross S, Khouri Roger K, Scovell Jason M, Stiwald Adam, Ponziano Michelle, Zampini Anna M, Dewitt-Foy Molly E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Clinic no-shows result in misallocation of health care resources and decreased access to care. There is minimal published data examining factors associated with no-shows for ambulatory urology visits. We analyzed data from a large cohort of outpatient encounters at a tertiary health system to identify factors that increase the likelihood of ambulatory urology no-show.
METHODS: Data were available from scheduled ambulatory urology appointments at 18 clinics in an academic, tertiary health system between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023. A control group of completed appointments and a study group of no-show appointments were used for comparative statistics. χ2 and t tests were used to make comparisons. The false discovery rate-adjusted P value was calculated using Bonferroni method.
RESULTS: Data were available from a total of 990,749 appointments. A total of 187,036 appointments from 10 clinics met inclusion and exclusion criteria, among which 177,718 (95%) were completed appointments and 9318 (5%) were patient no-shows. Patients who no-showed were younger (58 years vs 62 years; P < .01) and Black (odds ratio [OR] 3.74). No-shows were more common if the visit was virtual (OR 1.50) or follow-up (OR 1.50). Patients referred from the emergency department were more likely to no-show (OR 1.50). Of the 26 urologic diagnoses examined, testis cancer (OR 2.58) and orchitis (OR 2.49) appointments were more likely to no-show.
CONCLUSIONS: We analyzed ambulatory urology appointments within our hospital enterprise and found factors associated with a higher rate of no-show. These data may be helpful to identify patients at risk of no-show and to implement tailored strategies to enhance clinic attendance.
METHODS: Data were available from scheduled ambulatory urology appointments at 18 clinics in an academic, tertiary health system between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023. A control group of completed appointments and a study group of no-show appointments were used for comparative statistics. χ2 and t tests were used to make comparisons. The false discovery rate-adjusted P value was calculated using Bonferroni method.
RESULTS: Data were available from a total of 990,749 appointments. A total of 187,036 appointments from 10 clinics met inclusion and exclusion criteria, among which 177,718 (95%) were completed appointments and 9318 (5%) were patient no-shows. Patients who no-showed were younger (58 years vs 62 years; P < .01) and Black (odds ratio [OR] 3.74). No-shows were more common if the visit was virtual (OR 1.50) or follow-up (OR 1.50). Patients referred from the emergency department were more likely to no-show (OR 1.50). Of the 26 urologic diagnoses examined, testis cancer (OR 2.58) and orchitis (OR 2.49) appointments were more likely to no-show.
CONCLUSIONS: We analyzed ambulatory urology appointments within our hospital enterprise and found factors associated with a higher rate of no-show. These data may be helpful to identify patients at risk of no-show and to implement tailored strategies to enhance clinic attendance.