Objective: Patients with limited English proficiency often face barriers to accessing timely care. We evaluated whether Spanish-language Fast Pass messaging, combined with two-way Short Message Service (SMS) functionality, increased appointment acceptance rates among Spanish-preferring patients while maintaining equitable outcomes for English-preferring patients. Methods: A pre/post-quality improvement project was conducted at Mayo Clinic from November 2023 to June 2025. Epic’s Fast Pass, an automated appointment waitlist system, was enhanced with Spanish-language templates and bidirectional SMS in lieu of patient portal utilization. The primary outcome was the Fast Pass acceptance rate for Spanish-preferring patients. Balancing measures included acceptance among English-preferring patients. Secondary outcomes included scheduler efficiency and cost savings. Results: Prior to implementation, Spanish-preferring patients accepted 4.69% of Fast Pass offers compared with 7.57% for English-preferring patients. Post-implementation, acceptance rates for Spanish-preferring patients increased from 4.69% to 8.05%, a 71.6% improvement in the acceptance rate, exceeding the initial target of a 7.57% acceptance rate. Acceptance rates for English-preferring patients also improved, rising from 7.57% to 9.5%, or a 25.5% improvement in the acceptance rate. The intervention resulted in 344 additional Spanish-language accepted appointments and 29,883 additional English-language accepted appointments, both measured by unique patient appointments. The intervention also improved operational efficiency, saving more than 4,000 hours of scheduler time and reducing scheduling-related costs. Conclusions: Spanish-language concordant and SMS-enabled Fast Pass messages improved patient equity in appointment access while increasing scheduling efficiency and reducing operational costs. Health systems should adopt language-concordant digital communication strategies. Future research should expand to include additional languages and explore artifical intelligence–based scheduling support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grob et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: