| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
North Oxfordshire Child and Family Clinic, Orchard Health Centre, Cope Road, Banbury, Oxfordshire OX16 2EZ, email: doctors_hawker{at}yahoo.co.uk
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction MethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
One factor that consistently seems to affect non-attendance is waiting time. This is particularly true in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Patients are less likely to attend the longer they wait between referral and their first appointment (Stern & Brown, 1994). In one study, families who attended had waited a mean of 3 weeks fewer than families who did not attend (Munjal et al, 1994). Another study (Foreman & Hanna, 2000) suggested a curvilinear relationship between waiting time and families’ engagement with CAMHS, with lack of engagement measured by a combination of non-attendance and failure to respond to correspondence asking if they still wanted treatment. Engagement was greatest for families waiting between 4 and 30 weeks for their first appointment, with just 10% responding after an 80-week wait.
Non-attendance threatens to maintain a vicious cycle, in which longer waits increase non-attendance, with the consequent wasted clinical time further prolonging waiting time for other patients. As a result, non-attendance disenfranchises many patients from treatment. As demand for services rises it becomes more important to reduce the time wasted by initial non-attendance.
Another factor which appears to affect attendance is the extent to which patients are engaged with a referral. Attendance at CAMHS is less likely when parents are actively opposed to a referral (Cottrell et al, 1988). Attendance at adult psychology appointments was greater when patient-led, either by the patient asking their general practitioner (GP) for the referral or by GPs seeing patients twice to discuss the referral before making it (Munro & Blakey, 1986).
A simple way of assessing patients’ engagement with a referral to mental health services is by asking them to opt in. Opt-in systems require the patient to respond in some way to the offer of an appointment. Those who do not respond are ineligible to attend. Opt-in is increasingly used by mental health services, and there are a number of empirical reports of its use (Balfour, 1986; Spector, 1988; Adams et al, 1989; Anderson & White, 1996; Wiseman & McBride, 1998; Srivasta & Allen, 1999; Waring et al, 1999; Yeandle, 1999; Conaghan et al, 2000).
A survey of psychology departments in the UK found that only those with a waiting list used opt-in systems (British Psychological Society, 1995), implying either that opt-in is a pragmatic response to long waiting times or that it does not work. This paper reviews the impact of opt-in and other interventions aimed at reducing initial non-attendance.
|
|
Method |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Demographic and diagnostic data
Stallard & Sayers
(1998) reported extensive
demographic and diagnostic data, and Adams et al
(1989) reported limited
diagnostic data about the opt-in group but not the comparison group. In both
these studies, participants in the opt-in group were drawn from slightly
different populations from participants in the control group (respectively,
patients selected for opt-in v. patients treated by the local team,
and patients seen by a targeted under-5s’ service v. patients
referred to a psychologist in a paediatric department). Conaghan et
al (2000) reported
demographic data on the social deprivation of the locality where opt-in was
introduced. No other study reported diagnostic or demographic data.
Impact of opt-in systems on non-attendance
All except one of the studies summarised in
Table 1 found that
non-attendance rates were reduced following the introduction of an opt-in
system. The median non-attendance rate was 27% without an opt-in system and 4%
with an opt-in system. When studies were excluded that made concurrent
comparisons between non-equivalent populations, or before-and-after
comparisons where the length of data collection before introducing opt-in was
unspecified, the median non-attendance rate was 28% without an opt-in system
and 2% with an opt-in system.
Varieties of opt-in
In most studies patients were not offered an appointment unless they
contacted the service in response to a written communication. It is not clear
whether this is the best method for reducing non-attendance because few
studies have used other methods, although the method used for opting in was
not clearly specified in the one study which reported no reduced
non-attendance (Conaghan et al,
2000).
Clinical risks of opt-in
An important question concerns the risk to patients who fail to opt in and
are therefore not seen. Patients from deprived socio-economic backgrounds are
less likely to attend mental health appointments than those from more
advantaged groups (Berrigan & Garfield,
1981; Conaghan et al,
2000), and opt-in would create health inequalities if it further
excluded such patients. Addressing this concern directly, Conaghan et
al (2000) found that an
opt-in system did not disproportionately increase non-attendance from
socio-economically deprived areas. Anderson & White
(1996) asked patients why they
did not opt in to psychological treatment. The patients gave reasons which
were more practical than pathological, such as wariness about seeing a
psychologist, labelling and treatment content, or believing the problem would
resolve (or had resolved) itself without help.
Other methods of reducing non-attendance
Postal or telephone reminders which were sent within 3 days of the
appointment reduced non-attendance rates by at least 50%, according to
randomised controlled trials in psychiatry
(Rusius, 1995) and CAMHS
(Kourany et al,
1990). Many more patients cancelled their appointments, however,
and cancelled appointments are hard to fill at short notice, resulting in the
same wastage in clinical time as non-attendance. Requests for patients to
confirm appointments reduced non-attendance at a clinic for alcohol problems
(Goldbeck, 1993) but not in a
psychology department (Fox & Skinner,
1997). Inviting 3-15 sets of parents at a time to an orientation
meeting improved their subsequent attendance at initial assessments, although
not at therapy (Wenning & King,
1995). Letters sent to patients when they were approaching the top
of the waiting list barely reduced non-attendance
(Wiseman & McBride, 1998),
although orientation letters sent after an appointment was made did
(Kourany et al,
1990). There was no evidence that sending patients an information
leaflet about the service, as their first contact with it, reduces
non-attendance unless combined with an opt-in system
(Balfour, 1986;
Adams et al, 1989;
Keen et al,
1996).
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
A major limitation to existing studies is the absence of demographic or diagnostic data that would indicate the equivalence or otherwise of intervention and control group populations. In support of the robustness of the results, the impact of opt-in was marginally greater when the studies with greater threats to equivalence were excluded. However, in the absence of data it remains possible that diagnostic or demographic differences between groups may have affected attendance rates as well as opt-in systems. Future research on opt-in systems would benefit from closer attention to potential differences between intervention and control groups.
Non-attendance may be further reduced by reminding patients about their appointments, at least close to the time when they are due. Other methods of reminding patients about their appointments, without asking them to respond, appear either inconsistently effective or ineffective in reducing non-attendance. The effectiveness of opt-in, in which the first appointment is contingent on the patient’s response, is consistent with other indicators that attendance is influenced by a patient’s engagement with a referral.
After at least 20 years of research, there is reasonably consistent evidence that opt-in systems, perhaps supplemented by reminders close to the appointment, are the method of choice for reducing non-attendance in secondary mental health services. Further research would be valuable to exclude the possibilities that the apparent impact of opt-in can be attributed to demographic or diagnostic differences and that its benefit may be short-lived. Notwithstanding, the recognition of the value of opt-in systems should be timely for National Health Service clinicians and managers who are uncertain how to meet the requirement for all patients to choose and book an appropriate first appointment (Department of Health, 2004). With an opt-in system combined with assessment slots set aside in advance by clinicians, letters can be written to patients inviting them to contact the clinic to opt in. Administrative staff can offer a choice of several appointments immediately to patients who telephone the clinic. Thus patients can be given choice at the same time as reducing the amount of clinical time wasted by non-attendance.
|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
ANDERSON, K. & WHITE, J. (1996) Evaluation of an opt-in system in primary care psychology. Clinical Psychology Forum, 93, 28 -30.
AUBREY, R., SELF, R. & HALSTEAD, J. E. (2003) Early nonattendance and subsequent attrition from psychological help. Clinical Psychology, 32, 6 -10.
BALFOUR, A. (1986) An innovation to encourage more "dropping in" to GP initiated referrals (and less "dropping out!"). Clinical Psychology Forum, 5, 14-17.
BERRIGAN, L. P. & GARFIELD, S. L. (1981) Relationship of missed psychotherapy appointments to premature termination and social class. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 239 -242.[Medline]
BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY (1995) Report on DCP survey of waiting lists in NHS clinical psychology services: 1992. Clinical Psychology Forum, 53, 39-42.
CONAGHAN, S., TRAYNOR, E., DAVIDSON, K. et al (2000) The efficacy of opt-in systems: evidence to the contrary. Clinical Psychology Forum, 138, 36-38.
COTTRELL, D., HILL, P., WALK, D., et al
(1988) Factors influencing non-attendance at child psychiatry
out-patient appointments. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 152, 201
-204.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2004) Choose and Book: Patient’s Choice of Hospital and Booked Appointment - Policy Framework. Department of Health.
FOREMAN, D. M. & HANNA, M. (2000) How long can a
waiting list be? The impact of waiting time on intention to attend child and
adolescent psychiatric clinics. Psychiatric Bulletin,
24, 211
-213.
FOX, T. & SKINNER, A. (1997) Giving clients information about non-attendance: does this reduce the number who "fail to attend"? Clinical Psychology Forum, 110, 220 -233.
GOLDBECK, R. (1993) Can a card mailing system help to
reduce the waiting lists at an alcohol problems clinic? Psychiatric
Bulletin, 17, 597
-598.
GOODE, L. (1997) Null contacts by clients referred by general practitioners and hospital consultants. Clinical Psychology Forum, 99, 32 -35.
HOARE, P., NORTON, B., CHISHOLM, D., et al (1996) An audit of 7000 successive child and adolescent psychiatry referrals in Scotland. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 229 -249.[Abstract]
KEEN, A., BLAKEY, R. & PEAKER, A. (1996) The effects on non-attendance and early discontinuation of enclosing an information leaflet to prospective clients for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Forum, 96, 33-35.
KOURANY, R. F. C., GARBER, J. & TORNUSCIOLO, G. (1990) Improving first appointment attendance rates in child psychiatry outpatient clinics. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 657 -660.[Medline]
MUNJAL, A., LATIMER, M. & McCUNE, N. (1994) Attendance at child psychiatry new patient clinics. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 11, 182 -184.
MUNRO, J. & BLAKEY, R. (1986) A study of nonattendance in first appointments with clinical psychologists. Clinical Psychology Forum, 17, 10-14.
RUSIUS, C. W. (1995) Improving out-patient attendance
using postal appointment reminders. Psychiatric
Bulletin, 19, 291
-292.
SPECTOR, K. (1988) Increasing take-up rate of clinical psychology services. Clinical Psychology Forum, 15, 11-13.
SRIVASTA, K. M. & ALLEN, D. (1999) Reducing the
time you and your patients wait. Psychiatric Bulletin,
23, 156
-159.
STALLARD, P., & SAYERS, J. (1998) An opt-in appointment system and brief therapy: perspectives on a waiting list initiative. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3, 199-212.[Abstract]
STERN, G. & BROWN, R. (1994) The effect of a waiting list on attendance at initial appointments in a child and family clinic. Child: Care, Health and Development, 20, 219 -230.[CrossRef][Medline]
WARING, P. A., ROSE, M. J. & MURPHY, P. (1999) RSVP: the effects of "opting-in" on attendance rates at a back pain rehabilitation programme. Clinical Psychology Forum, 127, 6 -8.
WENNING, K. & KING, S. (1995) Parent orientation
meetings to improve attendance and access at a child psychiatric clinic.
Psychiatric Services,
46, 831
-833.
WISEMAN, M. & McBRIDE, M. (1998) Increasing attendance rate for first appointments at child and family psychiatry clinics: an opt-in system. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 3, 68 -71.[CrossRef]
YEANDLE, J. (1999) Outcomes from an opt-in waiting list initiative in a community psychology service for children and families. Clinical Psychology Forum, 130, 18-21.
Read all eLetters
eLetters:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
