MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787368043 · doi:10.7556/jaoa.2018.022

Reducing Patient No-Shows: An Initiative at an Integrated Care Teaching Health Center

2018· article· en· W2787368043 on OpenAlex
Ashwin Mehra, Claire J. Hoogendoorn, Greg Haggerty, Jessica Engelthaler, Stephen Gooden, M. Joseph, Shannon L. Carroll, Peter Guiney

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Osteopathic Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Health careFamily medicineCenter (category theory)Intervention (counseling)Community health centerCommunity healthNursingPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient no-shows impede the effectiveness and efficiency of health care services delivery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a 2-phase intervention to reduce no-show rates at an integrated care community health center that incorporates a teaching program for osteopathic family medicine residents. METHODS: The Elmont Teaching Health Center (ETHC) is 1 of 5 community-based health centers comprising the Long Island Federally Qualified Health Centers. In August 2015, the ETHC implemented a centerwide No-Show Rates Reduction Initiative divided into an assessment phase and implementation phase. The assessment phase identified reasons most frequently cited by patients for no-shows at the ETHC. The implementation phase, initiated in mid-September, addressed these reasons by focusing on reminder call verification, patient education, personal responses to patient calls, institutional awareness, and integration with multiple departments. To assess the initiative, monthly no-show rates were compared by quarter for 2015 and against rates for the previous year. RESULTS: We recorded 27,826 appointments with 6147 no-shows in 2014 and 31,696 appointments with 5690 no-shows in 2015. No-show rates in the first 3 quarters of 2015 (range, 18.2%-20.0%) were slightly lower than the rates in 2014 (20.1%-23.4%) and then changed by an increasingly wide margin in the last quarter of 2015 (15.3%), leading to a significant year (2014, 2015) by quarter (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) interaction (P=.004). Also, the change observed in Q4 in 2015 differed significantly from Q1 (P=.017), Q2 (P=.004), and Q3 (P=.027) in 2015, while Q1, Q2, and Q3 in 2015 did not significantly differ from one another. CONCLUSION: No-show rates were successfully reduced after a 2-phase intervention was implemented at 1 health center within a larger health care organization. Future directions include dismantling the individual components of the intervention, evaluating the role of patient volumes in no-show rates, assessing patient outcomes (eg, costs, health) in integrative care settings that treat underserved populations, and evaluating family medicine residents' training on continuity of care and no-show rates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it