Thompson, Matthew C

Background: Patients performing self-triage for chest pain need to pick an algorithm which includes questions pertinent to chest pain to triage accurately. Objective: Our study reviews patient self-triage choices and outcomes for patients who completed an online self-triage encounter before being triaged by a nurse for chest pain. Methods: Patients who underwent telephone nurse triage for chest pain, and also had an online self-triage encounter within the prior 24 hours were reviewed for the frequency with which they chose “chest pain” as their symptom to triage for during self-triage, whether they reported chest pain during the self-triage encounter (if asked as part of the algorithm for their chosen self-triage symptom) and whether the patient had any follow up evaluation within 1 week. Results: There were 70 self-triage and nurse triage dyads during the study period where triage nurses chose “chest pain” as the primary symptom to be triaged for during the telephone triage encounter. Of these, only 5 (7.1%) patients chose the “chest pain” self-triage option during online self-triage. During the self-triage encounter, 50 (71%) reported chest pain, 10 (14%) denied chest pain and 10 chose to self-triage their symptoms with an algorithm that did not include a question on whether chest pain was present. Of the 70 total dyads 59 (84%) had a follow up emergency department (40 patients) or office visit (19 patients) documented. Conclusion: Most patients chosen to be triaged for chest pain by triage nurses did not choose the online self-triage algorithm for chest pain even though the majority did report chest pain during their self-triage encounter (when asked). This is concerning from a safety perspective as a non-chest pain self-triage option chosen by the patient may not always ask about the presence or absence of chest pain and thus could increase the risk of being triaged inaccurately. Implications for improvement of self-triage could include diagrams for patients to choose the symptom area.

Introduction: Online self-scheduling of medical appointments is increasingly common. An automated waitlist can be used for patients who desire an earlier appointment time if one becomes available after they are scheduled. Our study examines outcomes of an automated waitlist and self-rescheduling process. Methods: We studied outcomes of an automated waitlist self-rescheduling process in which patients with existing appointments elected to be placed on an automated waitlist for an earlier appointment offer. When software found earlier dates for the same visit type, patients were then notified through an automated process and could self-reschedule. We reviewed appointments for which patients were sent new offers when earlier appointment slots were found. We compared the accepted appointment offers with the original scheduled appointments and determined the number of days that the appointment had been moved up. Results: Spanning the calendar year 2023 there were 1 019 698 appointment offers generated by an automated waitlist process for 229 998 appointments and sent to 164 248 patients. The waitlist process automatically found open appointments as they became available and sent the first new appointment offer within 2 days after being placed on the waitlist for 74 736 (32.5%) of the 229 998 waitlisted appointments. Patients sent back at least 1 response for 104 554 (45.4%) of the waitlisted appointments. Of the responses, 56 636 accepted one of the sent offers for an accept rate of 24.6% (56 636/229 998). For accepted, moved-up visits, appointments were self-rescheduled earlier by a mean of 22.6 days (95%CI; 22.2, 22.9, P < .0001). Conclusion: New appointments can be successfully self-rescheduled using an automated waitlist process that allows patients to accept or decline new appointment offers. This process can increase the efficiency of scheduling and decrease appointment wait time for patients desiring more timely access to healthcare. In addition, this process can be successfully applied across several different appointment type categories.

Introduction Patient self-scheduling of medical appointments is becoming more common in many medical institutions. However, the complexity of scheduling multiple specialties, following scheduling guidelines, and managing appointment access requires a variety of processes for a diverse inventory of self-schedulable appointment types. Methods From 7 unique patient self-scheduling methods, we captured counts of successfully self-scheduled and completed appointments. A process map was created to show the paths of 5 different primary self-scheduling processes (new appointment self-scheduling) and 2 secondary self-scheduling processes (existing appointment self-rescheduling). Results There were 7 unique processes that led to 733,651 successfully self-scheduled completed visits from January 1 to December 31, 2023 at a multisite, multispecialty clinic. The self-scheduling processes consisted of the following: (1) Ticket offer (appointment “ticket” offers for specific visits generated by a provider order or system rules), the software “ticket” sent to the patient permits “admission” to self-schedule calendar templates (341,591 uses, 46.6%); (2) direct self-scheduled visit for prequalified visit types (203,593 uses, 27.6%); (3) self-reschedule option (patient option to reschedule existing appointment, 79,706 uses, 10.9%); (4) new patient self-scheduled visit via clinic website (does not require portal access, 54,367 uses, 7.4%). (5) automated waitlist self-rescheduled visit (38,649 uses, 5.3%); (6) automated waitlist self-scheduled visit of previously unscheduled visit (10,939 uses, 1.5%); and (7) self-triage self-scheduled visit (4806 uses, 0.7%). Conclusion The processes for self-scheduling are expanding. Our multispecialty clinic has implemented 7 different processes to help patients successfully self-schedule medical appointments. Some of the processes occur before initial scheduling (such as self-triage), and some are implemented after successful scheduling has already occurred (self-rescheduling option and self-rescheduling aided by an automated waitlist). Continued research is needed to look for measures of success beyond the ability to complete a self-scheduled visit, including the accuracy of the booking (right provider, location, and length of visit).

Background Self-scheduling of medical visits is becoming more common but the complexity of applying multiple requirements for self-scheduling has hampered implementation. Mayo Clinic implemented self-scheduling in 2019 and has been increasing its portfolio of self-schedulable visits since then. Our aim was to show measures quantifying the complexity associated with medical visit scheduling and to describe how opportunities and challenges of scheduling complexity apply in self-scheduling. Methods We examined scheduled visits from January 1, 2022, through August 24, 2023. For seven visit categories, we counted all unique visit types that were scheduled, for both staff-scheduled and self-scheduled. We examined counts of self-scheduled visit types to identify those with highest uptake during the study period. Results There were 9555 unique visit types associated with 20.8 M (million) completed visits. Self-scheduled visit types accounted for 4.0% (838,592/20,769,699) of the completed total visits. Of seven visit categories, self-scheduled established patient visits, testing visits, and procedure visits accounted for 93.5% (784,375/838,592) of all self-scheduled visits. Established patient visits in primary care (10 visit types) accounted for 273,007 (32.6%) of all self-scheduled visits. Testing visits (blood and urine testing, 2 visit types) accounted for 183,870 (21.9%) of all self-scheduled visits. Procedure visits for screening mammograms, bone mineral density, and immunizations (8 visit types) accounted for 147,358 (17.6%) of all self-scheduled visits. Conclusion Large numbers of unique visit types comprise a major challenge for self-scheduling. Some visit types are more suitable for self-scheduling. Guideline-based procedure visits such as screening mammograms, bone mineral density exams, and immunizations are examples of visits that have high volumes and can be standardized for self-scheduling. Established patient visits and laboratory testing visits also can be standardized for self-scheduling. Despite the successes, there remain thousands of specific visit types that may need some staff-scheduler intervention to properly schedule.

Background Self-scheduling of medical visits is becoming available at many medical institutions. We aimed to examine the self-scheduled visit counts and rate of growth of self-scheduled visits in a multispecialty practice. Methods For 85 weeks extending from January 1, 2022 through August 24, 2023, we examined self-scheduled visit counts for over 1500 self-scheduled visit types. We compared completed self-scheduled visit counts to all scheduled completed visit counts for the same visit types. We collected counts of the most frequently self-scheduled visit types for each week and examined the change over time. We also determined the proportion that each visit type was self-scheduled. Results There were 20,769 699 completed visits during the course of the study that met the criteria for inclusion. Self-scheduled visits accounted for 4.0% of all completed visits (838 592/20,769 699). Over the 85-week span, self-scheduled visits rose from 3.0% to 5.3% of the total. There were 1887 unique visit types that were associated with completed visits. There were just 6 appointment visit types of the total 1887 self-scheduled visit types that accounted for 50.7% of the total 838 592 self-scheduled visits. Those 6 visit types were a lab blood test visit (19.5%, 163 K visits), two Family Medicine office visit types (13.0%, 109 K visits), a screening mammogram visit type (6.6%, 55 K visits), a scheduled express care visit type (6%, 50 K visits) and a COVID immunization visit type (5.7%, 48 K visits). Twenty-one visit types that were self-scheduled accounted for 75% of the total self-scheduled visits. Four seasonal visits, accounting for 10.6% of the total self-scheduled visits, were responsible for almost all the non-linear change in self-scheduling. Conclusion Self-scheduling accounted for a small but growing percent of all outpatient scheduled visits in a multispecialty, multisite practice. A wide range of visit types can be successfully self-scheduled.

Background Although online self-triage is easily accessible, little is known about the patients who use self-triage or their subsequent diagnoses. We compared ear/hearing self-triage subsequent diagnoses to ear/hearing visit diagnoses in emergency departments (ED) and ambulatory clinics across the United States. Methods We compared International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD10) coded diagnoses following online self-triage for ear/hearing concerns with those from national ED and ambulatory clinic samples. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for comparison. Using matched ear/hearing diagnostic categories for those aged 1 and over, we compared self-triage diagnosis frequencies with national ED and ambulatory diagnosis frequencies. Results Following ear/hearing self-triage, there were 1092 subsequent office visits with a primary diagnosis code. For five frequently diagnosed ear/hearing conditions (i.e., suppurative and nonsuppurative otitis media [OM], otalgia, otitis externa, and cerumen impaction), there was a strong correlation between diagnosis counts made following self-triage and estimated counts of national ED visit diagnoses (r = 0.94; CI 95% [0.37 to 0.99]; p = .016, adjusted r2 = 0.85). Seven diagnoses were available to compare with the national ambulatory sample; correlation was r = 0.79; CI 95% [0.08 to 0.97]; p = .037, adjusted r2 = 0.54. For ages 1 and over, estimated hospital admissions from the national ED visits for ear/hearing were 0.76%, CI 95% [0.28-2.1%]; estimated total national ear/hearing ED visits were 7.5 million (for 4 years, 2016 through 2019). Conclusion The strong correlation of ear-related self-triage diagnoses with national ED diagnoses and the low hospitalization risk for these diagnoses suggests that there is an opportunity for self-triage of ear/hearing concerns to decrease ED visits for these symptoms.

Background Self-triage is becoming more widespread, but little is known about the people who are using online self-triage tools and their outcomes. For self-triage researchers, there are significant barriers to capturing subsequent healthcare outcomes. Our integrated healthcare system was able to capture subsequent healthcare utilization of individuals who used self-triage integrated with self-scheduling of provider visits. Methods We retrospectively examined healthcare utilization and diagnoses after patients had used self-triage and self-scheduling for ear or hearing symptoms. Outcomes and counts of office visits, telemedicine interactions, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were captured. Diagnosis codes associated with subsequent provider visits were dichotomously categorized as being associated with ear or hearing concerns or not. Nonvisit care encounters of patient-initiated messages, nurse triage calls, and clinical communications were also captured. Results For 2168 self-triage uses, we were able to capture subsequent healthcare encounters within 7 days of the self-triage for 80.5% (1745/2168). In subsequent 1092 office visits with diagnoses, 83.1% (891/1092) of the uses were associated with relevant ear, nose and throat diagnoses. Only 0.24% (4/1662) of patients with captured outcomes were associated with a hospitalization within 7 days. Self-triage resulted in a self-scheduled office visit in 7.2% (126/1745). Office visits resulting from a self-scheduled visit had significantly fewer combined non-visit care encounters per office visit (fewer combined nurse triage calls, patient messages, and clinical communication messages) than office visits that were not self-scheduled (−0.51; 95% CI, −0.72 to −0.29; P < .0001). Conclusion In an appropriate healthcare setting, self-triage outcomes can be captured in a high percentage of uses to examine for safety, patient adherence to recommendations, and efficiency of self-triage. With the ear or hearing self-triage, most uses had subsequent visit diagnoses relevant to ear or hearing, so most patients appeared to be selecting the appropriate self-triage pathway for their symptoms.

Introduction The COVID 19 pandemic increased the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic testing for COVID. When testing became available, a systems response was needed to efficiently accommodate the high-volume flow of patients who needed testing. Self-scheduling of COVID testing was developed to help patients safely and efficiently schedule their COVID testing online or with a mobile app. Methods We captured the counts of COVID test appointments, time patients spent in scheduling COVID test appointments, appointment lead times, and no-shows for COVID test appointments. For 17 months of self-scheduling, we retrospectively compared self-scheduling with the concurrent staff scheduling of COVID tests. Results From November 2020 through March 2022 there were 619 104 scheduled appointments for COVID testing with 22% (136 252) being self-scheduled. For asymptomatic self-scheduled COVID tests, accounting for 10.3% (63 605/619 104) of total COVID tests scheduled, median time to self-schedule was 3.1 min, interquartile range (IQR) [2.4,4.7]. For symptomatic self-schedulers accounting for 11.7% (72 647/619 104) of total COVID tests scheduled, the median time to self-triage and self-schedule was 5.8 min, IQR[4.3,8.9]. Self-scheduled COVID appointments increased to 44% (42 387/97 086) of the total COVID appointments during the peak month of January 2022. Median appointment lead time for symptomatic self-scheduled COVID test appointments was 6.6 h compared to 2.9 h ( P < .0001) for symptomatic staff scheduled appointments. However, adjusting for the 24% (32 194/135 252) that self-scheduled during hours when testing was unavailable, the median appointment lead time for symptomatic self-scheduled patients dropped to 3.6 h. No-shows were 2.5% for self-scheduled appointments compared to 3.0% no-shows that were staff scheduled (odds ratio 0.83, P < .0001). Conclusion COVID testing was self-scheduled for a large percent of scheduled COVID tests, taking patients only a few minutes to complete. Self-scheduling use increased over time, associated with a decreasing use of staff scheduled appointments and lower no-shows.