Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety I (MP02)1 May 2024MP02-12 RISK FACTORS FOR INCOMPLETE URODYNAMIC TESTING APPOINTMENTS AND INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE APPOINTMENT NO-SHOWS AND LATE-CANCELLATIONS Andrew Murphy, Jessie Chen, Alana Christie, Colby Souders, Paige Kuhlmann, Christine Herforth, Maude Carmel, Philippe Zimmern, Gary Lemack, and Ramy Goueli Andrew MurphyAndrew Murphy , Jessie ChenJessie Chen , Alana ChristieAlana Christie , Colby SoudersColby Souders , Paige KuhlmannPaige Kuhlmann , Christine HerforthChristine Herforth , Maude CarmelMaude Carmel , Philippe ZimmernPhilippe Zimmern , Gary LemackGary Lemack , and Ramy GoueliRamy Goueli View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008600.97797.3b.12AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The resource intensive nature of urodynamic testing (UDS) often limits the availability of this important study. Patient no-shows and late cancellations (NS/C) waste this valuable tool. Our objectives were to identify risk factors associated with NS/C and locate intervention points in the UDS care pathway that could decrease NS/C rates. METHODS: With IRB approval, we performed retrospective analysis of scheduled UDS appointments at a large, academic medical center from January 2022 through June 2022. We compared patients with NS/C (within 48 hours of the appointment) to patients who completed UDS. Variables assessed include demographic data, distance from home, diagnosis, confirmation status, UDS type, and days between scheduling and appointment dates. We completed a phone survey of NS/C patients to identify a reason for NS/C. An assessment of scheduling procedures and staff interviews were conducted. RESULTS: UDS appointments had a NS/C rate of 15.5% (69 NS/C out of 442 total tests). The NS/C group had a lower rate of appointment confirmation (37.7% vs 74.8%, p<0.001), lower rate of marriage (35.9% vs 60.2%, p<0.001), and more days between scheduling UDS and the appointment date (46.5 vs 37, p=0.007). The NS/C group was significantly more racially diverse and had lower rates of enrollment in Medicare or private insurance. A phone survey was completed by 36 (52.2%) of the NS/C patients. The most common reasons for NS/C were illness (30%), including urinary tract infection (UTI), and transportation issues (27.8%). The existing scheduling process included inconsistent confirmation calls, limited patient education, no screening for UTI, and difficulty filling UDS slots after cancelations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a starting point to develop interventions aimed at decreasing the UDS NS/C rate. Planned interventions include a UTI screening and nurse triage protocol, centralized and standardized confirmation calls, patient education handouts, and a waitlist for filling late-notice, open appointments. Utilizing existing social determinants of health scores to help identify patients at risk for NS/C may enable a more patient centered approach and limit NS/C rates. Together, these strategies may optimize the use of a limited resource. Download PPT Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e17 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Andrew Murphy More articles by this author Jessie Chen More articles by this author Alana Christie More articles by this author Colby Souders More articles by this author Paige Kuhlmann More articles by this author Christine Herforth More articles by this author Maude Carmel More articles by this author Philippe Zimmern More articles by this author Gary Lemack More articles by this author Ramy Goueli More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Murphy et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: