Premium
Improving Follow‐up Attendance for Discharged Emergency Care Patients Using Automated Phone System to Self‐schedule: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Author(s) -
Bauer Kyla L.,
Sogade Omolade O.,
Gage Brian F.,
Ruoff Brent,
Lewis Lawrence
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1111/acem.14080
Subject(s) - medicine , referral , emergency department , randomized controlled trial , attendance , confidence interval , phone , emergency medicine , hazard ratio , medical emergency , physical therapy , family medicine , nursing , economics , economic growth , linguistics , philosophy
Background Automated phone appointment reminders have improved adherence with follow‐up appointments in a variety of hospital settings, but have mixed results in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). Increasing adherence to follow‐up care has been a priority in the ED to improve patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary future visits. Methods We conducted a prospective randomized open, blinded end‐point (PROBE) trial of 278 adult patients discharged from the ED and referred to a provider for follow‐up care. Participants in the intervention arm received a self‐scheduling text or phone message that automatically connected them to their referral provider to schedule a follow‐up appointment and sent them appointment reminders. Those in the control arm received standard‐of‐care written instructions to contact listed referral providers. The primary outcome was time to appointment. The secondary outcome was time to return visit to the ED. Results The automated reminders increased the cumulative incidence of keeping the referral appointment after ED discharge (p < 0.001, Gray's test). Of participants randomized to the automated phone intervention, 49.3% ( n = 74) kept their follow‐up appointment versus 23.4% ( n = 30) in the control arm, with a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) over the duration of the study period of 2.4 (1.6 to 3.7; p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis using 30 days of follow‐up data, 42.0% ( n = 63) of participants randomized to the phone intervention kept their follow‐up versus 21.1% ( n = 27) in the control arm, with a HR (95% CI) of 2.2 (1.4 to 3.5; p < 0.001). There was no difference in ED revisits between the intervention and control group within 120 days postdischarge. Conclusions An automated self‐scheduling phone system significantly improved follow‐up adherence after ED discharge, but did not decrease ED revisits.