UNASSIGNED: Patients\' missed appointments can cause interference in the functions of the clinics and the visit of other patients. One of the most effective strategies to solve the problem of no-show rate is the use of an open access scheduling system (OA). This systematic review was conducted with the aim of investigating the impact of OA on the rate of no-show of patients in outpatient clinics.
UNASSIGNED: Relevant articles in English were investigated based on the keywords in title and abstract using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and Google Scholar search engine (July 23, 2023). The articles using OA and reporting the no-show rate were included. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) review articles, opinion, and letters, (2) inpatient scheduling system articles, and (3) modeling or simulating OA articles. Data were extracted from the selected articles about such issues as study design, outcome measures, interventions, results, and quality score.
UNASSIGNED: From a total of 23,403 studies, 16 articles were selected. The specialized fields included family medicine (62.5%, 10), pediatrics (25%, four), ophthalmology, podiatric, geriatrics, internal medicine, and primary care (6.25%, one). Of 16 articles, 10 papers (62.5%) showed a significant decrease in the no-show rate. In four articles (25%), the no-show rate was not significantly reduced. In two papers (12.5%), there were no significant changes.
UNASSIGNED: According to this study results, it seems that in most outpatient clinics, the use of OA by considering some conditions such as conducting needs assessment and system design based on the patients\' and providers\' actual needs, and cooperating of all system stakeholders through consistent training caused a significant decrease in the no-show rate.

BACKGROUND: The optimal model of outpatient intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up care remains uncertain, and there is limited evidence of benefit.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to describe existing models of outpatient ICU follow-up care, quantify participant recruitment and retention, and describe facilitators of patient engagement.
METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was undertaken in June 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts against eligibility criteria. Studies of adults with any outpatient ICU follow-up were included. Studies were excluded if published before 1990, not published in English, or of paediatric patients. Quantitative data were extracted using predefined data fields. Key themes were extracted from qualitative studies. Risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 531 studies were screened. Forty-seven studies (32 quantitative and 15 qualitative studies) with a total of 5998 participants were included. Of 33 quantitative study interventions, the most frequently reported model of care was in-person hospital-based interventions (n = 27), with 10 hybrid (part in-hospital, part remote) interventions. Literature was limited for interventions without hospital attendance (n = 6), including telehealth and diaries. The median ranges of rates of recruitment, rates of intervention delivery, and retention to outcome assessment for hospital-based interventions were 51.5% [24-94%], 61.9% [8-100%], and 52% [8.1-82%], respectively. Rates were higher for interventions without hospital attendance: 82.6% [60-100%], 68.5% [59-89%], and 75% [54-100%]. Facilitators of engagement included patient-perceived value of follow-up, continuity of care, intervention accessibility and flexibility, and follow-up design. Studies had a moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Models of post-ICU care without in-person attendance at the index hospital potentially have higher rates of recruitment, intervention delivery success, and increased participant retention when compared to hospital-based interventions.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42021260279.

Polypharmacy is associated with negative clinical consequences. The efficacy of deprescribing interventions within medical specialist outpatient clinics remains unclear. Here, we reviewed the research on the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions implemented within specialist outpatient clinics for patients ≥ 60 years.
Systematic searches of key databases were undertaken for studies published between January 1990 and October 2021. The diverse nature of the study designs made it unsuitable for pooling for meta-analysis, thus, a narrative review was conducted and presented in both text and tabular formats. The primary outcome for review was that intervention resulted in a change in medication load (either total number of medications or appropriateness of medication). Secondary outcomes were the maintenance of deprescription and clinical benefits. Methodological quality of the publications was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools.
Nineteen studies with a total of 10,914 participants were included for review. These included geriatric outpatient clinics, oncology/hematology clinics, hemodialysis clinics, and designated polypharmacy/multimorbidity clinics. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported statistically significant reductions in medication load with intervention; however, all studies had a high risk of bias. The inclusion of a pharmacist in outpatient clinics aims to increase deprescribing, however, the current evidence is mainly restricted to prospective and pilot studies. The data on secondary outcomes were very limited and highly variable.
Specialist outpatient clinics may provide valuable settings for implementing deprescribing interventions. The addition of a multidisciplinary team including a pharmacist and the use of validated medication assessment tools appear to be enablers. Further research is warranted.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the impact of specialist palliative care (SPC) consultations in outpatient settings on pain control in adults suffering from cancer.
METHODS: Systematic Review. Databases CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo, and Embase were searched in February 2021. Relevant studies were also hand-searched and gray literature was searched in February 2021. The PICO mnemonic (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) was used to form the review question. Of 1053 potential studies identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using the evidence-based librarian (EBL) critical appraisal checklist.
RESULTS: Outcome data from 56% (n = 5/9) studies indicated a non-statistically significant reduction in pain. Narrative analysis of the remaining studies indicated a statistically significant reduction in pain in 50% (n = 2/4) of the studies, one study showed mixed results, and one study found no statistically significant improvement in pain control. In relation to secondary outcomes, results from 33% (3/9) of studies indicated statistically significant improvement in symptom control. Data from 22% (n = 2/9) of studies indicated no statistically significant improvement in the symptoms measured. Narrative analysis of the remaining four studies indicated generally mixed results. EBL scores of included studies ranged between 50% and 95.23%.
CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient SPC consultations may have a positive impact on the control of pain and other distressing symptoms for cancer patients, however, results show mixed effects. Given that it is unclear what it is about outpatient SPC that impacts positively or otherwise on pain and symptom control.

Note entry and review in electronic health records (EHRs) are time-consuming. While some clinics have adopted team-based models of note entry, how these models have impacted note review is unknown in outpatient specialty clinics such as ophthalmology. We hypothesized that ophthalmologists and ancillary staff review very few notes. Using audit log data from 9775 follow-up office visits in an academic ophthalmology clinic, we found ophthalmologists reviewed a median of 1 note per visit (2.6 ± 5.3% of available notes), while ancillary staff reviewed a median of 2 notes per visit (4.1 ± 6.2% of available notes). While prior ophthalmic office visit notes were the most frequently reviewed note type, ophthalmologists and staff reviewed no such notes in 51% and 31% of visits, respectively. These results highlight the collaborative nature of note review and raise concerns about how cumbersome EHR designs affect efficient note review and the utility of prior notes in ophthalmic clinical care.

We undertook a scoping review of the published literature to identify and summarise key findings on the telehealth interventions that influence waiting times or waiting lists for specialist outpatient services. Searches were conducted to identify relevant articles. Articles were included if the telehealth intervention restructured or made the referral process more efficient. We excluded studies that simply increased capacity. Two categories of interventions were identified - electronic consultations and image-based triage. Electronic consultations are asynchronous, text-based provider-to-provider consultations. Electronic consultations have been reported to obviate the need for face-to-face appointments between the patient and the specialist in between 34-92% of cases. However, it is often reported that electronic consultations are appropriate in less than 10% of referrals for outpatient care. Image-based triage has been used successfully to reduce unnecessary or inappropriate referrals and was used most often in dermatology, ophthalmology and otolaryngology (ENT). Reported reduction rates for face-to-face appointments by specialty were: dermatology 38-88%, ophthalmology 16-48% and ENT 89%. Image-based triage can be twice as effective as non-image based triage in reducing unnecessary appointments. Telehealth interventions can effectively be used to reduce waiting lists and improve the coordination of specialist services, and should be considered in conjunction with clinical requirements.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is placing primary care at the epicenter of accountability of US health care delivery. There is a significant body of evidence characterizing the value of acute-care hospital infection surveillance systems. Given the central role primary care is beginning to play, we were interested in examining the use of infection surveillance systems in primary care practice. Our review of the literature found only 2 articles describing the influence of primary care infection surveillance systems, both providing evidence of its benefits. This area is ripe for further research.