If You Book It, Will They Come? Attendance at Postdischarge Follow-Up Visits Scheduled by Inpatient Providers
BACKGROUND: Postdischarge follow-up visits (PDFVs) are widely recommended to improve inpatient-outpatient transitions of care.
OBJECTIVE: To measure PDFV attendance rates. DESIGN: Observational cohort study.
SETTING: Medical units at an academic quaternary-care hospital and its affiliated outpatient clinics.
PATIENTS: Adult patients hospitalized between April 2014 and March 2015 for whom at least 1 PDFV with our health system was scheduled. Exclusion criteria included nonprovider visits, visits cancelled before discharge, nonaccepted health insurance, and visits scheduled for deceased patients.
MEASUREMENTS: The study outcome was the incidence of PDFVs resulting in no-shows or same-day cancellations (NS/SDCs).
RESULTS: Of all hospitalizations, 6136 (52%) with 9258 PDFVs were analyzed. Twenty-five percent of PDFVs were NS/SDCs, 23% were cancelled before the visit, and 52% were attended as scheduled. In multivariable regression models, NS/SDC risk factors included black race (odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-2.32), longer lengths of stay (hospitalizations ≥15 days: OR 1.51, 95% CI, 1.22-1.88), and discharge to facility (OR 2.10, 95% CI, 1.70-2.60). Conversely, NS/SDC visits were less likely with advancing age (age ≥65 years: OR 0.39, 95% CI, 0.31-0.49) and driving distance (highest quartile: OR 0.65, 95% CI, 0.52-0.81). Primary care visits had higher NS/SDC rates (OR 2.62, 95% CI, 2.03-3.38) than oncologic visits. The time interval between discharge and PDFV was not associated with NS/SDC rates.
CONCLUSIONS: PDFVs were scheduled for more than half of hospitalizations, but 25% resulted in NS/SDCs. New strategies are needed to improve PDFV attendance. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:618-625. © 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine
Given growing incentives to reduce readmission rates, predischarge checklists and bundles have recommended that inpatient providers schedule postdischarge follow-up visits (PDFVs) for their hospitalized patients.1-4 PDFVs have been linked to lower readmission rates in patients with chronic conditions, including congestive heart failure, psychiatric illnesses, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.5-8 In contrast, the impact of PDFVs on readmissions in hospitalized general medicine populations has been mixed.9-12 Beyond the presence or absence of PDFVs, it may be a patient’s inability to keep scheduled PDFVs that contributes more strongly to preventable readmissions.11
This challenge, dealing with the 12% to 37% of patients who miss their visits (“no-shows”), is not new.13-17 In high-risk patient populations, such as those with substance abuse, diabetes, or human immunodeficiency virus, no-shows (NSs) have been linked to poorer short-term and long-term clinical outcomes.16,18-20 Additionally, NSs pose a challenge for outpatient clinics and the healthcare system at large. The financial cost of NSs ranges from approximately $200 per patient in 2 analyses to $7 million in cumulative lost revenue per year at 1 large academic health system.13,17,21 As such, increasing attendance at PDFVs is a potential target for improving both patient outcomes and clinic productivity.
Most prior PDFV research has focused on readmission risk rather than PDFV attendance as the primary outcome.5-12 However, given the patient-oriented benefits of attending PDFVs and the clinic-oriented benefits of avoiding vacant time slots, NS PDFVs represent an important missed opportunity for our healthcare delivery system. To our knowledge, risk factors for PDFV nonattendance have not yet been systematically studied. The aim of our study was to analyze PDFV nonattendance, particularly NSs and same-day cancellations (SDCs), for hospitalizations and clinics within our healthcare system.
METHODS
Study Design
We conducted an observational cohort study of adult patients from 10 medical units at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (a 789-bed quaternary-care hospital within an urban, academic medical system) who were scheduled with at least 1 PDFV. Specifically, the patients included in our analysis were hospitalized on general internal medicine services or medical subspecialty services with discharge dates between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2015. Hospitalizations included in our study had at least 1 PDFV scheduled with an outpatient provider affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS). PDFVs scheduled with unaffiliated providers were not examined.
Each PDFV was requested by a patient’s inpatient care team. Once the care team had determined that a PDFV was clinically warranted, a member of the team (generally a resident, advanced practice provider, medical student, or designee) either called the UPHS clinic to schedule an appointment time or e-mailed the outpatient UPHS provider directly to facilitate a more urgent PDFV appointment time. Once a PDFV time was confirmed, PDFV details (ie, date, time, location, and phone number) were electronically entered into the patient’s discharge instructions by the inpatient care team. At the time of discharge, nurses reviewed these instructions with their patients. All patients left the hospital with a physical copy of these instructions. As part of routine care at our institution, patients then received automated telephone reminders from their UPHS-affiliated outpatient clinic 48 hours prior to each PDFV.
Data Collection
Our study was determined to meet criteria for quality improvement by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institutional Review Board. We used our healthcare system’s integrated electronic medical record system to track the dates of initial PDFV requests, the dates of hospitalization, and actual PDFV dates. PDFVs were included if the appointment request was made while a patient was hospitalized, including the day of discharge. Our study methodology only allowed us to investigate PDFVs scheduled with UPHS outpatient providers. We did not review discharge instructions or survey non-UPHS clinics to quantify visits scheduled with other providers, for example, community health centers or external private practices.
Exclusion criteria included the following: (1) office visits with nonproviders, for example, scheduled diagnostic procedures or pharmacist appointments for warfarin dosing; (2) visits cancelled by inpatient providers prior to discharge; (3) visits for patients not otherwise eligible for UPHS outpatient care because of insurance reasons; and (4) visits scheduled for dates after a patient’s death. Our motivation for the third exclusion criterion was the infrequent and irregular process by which PDFVs were authorized for these patients. These patients and their characteristics are described in Supplementary Table 1 in more detail.
For each PDFV, we recorded age, gender, race, insurance status, driving distance, length of stay for index hospitalization, discharging service (general internal medicine vs subspecialty), postdischarge disposition (home, home with home care services such as nursing or physical therapy, or facility), the number of PDFVs scheduled per index hospitalization, PDFV specialty type (oncologic subspecialty, nononcologic medical subspecialty, nononcologic surgical subspecialty, primary care, or other specialty), PDFV season, and PDFV lead time (the number of days between the discharge date and PDFV). We consolidated oncologic specialties into 1 group given the integrated nature of our healthcare system’s comprehensive cancer center. “Other” PDFV specialty subtypes are described in Supplementary Table 2. Driving distances between patient postal codes and our hospital were calculated using Excel VBA Master (Salt Lake City, Utah) and were subsequently categorized into patient-level quartiles for further analysis. For cancelled PDFVs, we collected dates of cancellation relative to the date of the appointment itself.