Patients’ attendance at clinics is worse with choose and book
BMJ 2009; 338 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b396 (Published 02 February 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b396
- Prince Cheriyan Modayil, specialist registrar1,
- Rachael Hornigold, specialist registrar1,
- Raad John Glore, specialist registrar1,
- David A Bowdler, consultant1
- princemodayil2000{at}yahoo.co.in
In 2006 Wood described how the choose and book appointment system had been imposed with detrimental effects.1 It was intended to improve attendance at clinics, patients choosing the hospital and the time and date of appointment.
We have found that attendance in clinics is worse with choose and book than with traditional general practitioner referrals. In a pilot study at our hospital we observed a significant difference of 18% (choose and book) v 12% (general practitioner) for non-attendance in clinics (χ2=9.6, df=1, P=0.002). According to a recent study, most patients are not experiencing a significant choice in appointment time, date, or hospital.2
Choose and book has failed to achieve its main goal of improving patients’ satisfaction and attendance. Moreover, it creates an unnecessary economic burden on the health system and jeopardises the prioritisation process by removing clinicians from the process.
Notes
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b396
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.