↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Modified open-access scheduling for new patient evaluations at an academic chronic pain clinic increased patient access to care, but did not materially reduce their mean cancellation rate: A retrospective, observational study
Published in
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.06.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To determine if open-access scheduling would reduce the cancellation rate for new patient evaluations in a chronic pain clinic by at least 50%. Retrospective, observational study using electronic health records. Chronic pain clinic of an academic anesthesia department. All patients scheduled for evaluation or follow-up appointments in the chronic pain clinic between April 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Open-access scheduling was instituted in April 2015 with appointments offered on a date of the patient's choosing ≥1 business day after calling, with no limit on the daily number of new patients. Mean cancellation rates for new patients were compared between the 12-month baseline period prior to and for 7months after the change, following an intervening 2-month washout period. The method of batch means (by month) and the 2-sided Student t-test were used; P<0.01 required for significance. The new patient mean cancellation rate decreased from a baseline of 35.7% by 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4% to 6.9%; P=0.005); however, this failed to reach the 50% reduction target of 17.8%. Appointment lag time decreased by 4.7days (95% CI 2.3 to 7.0days, P<0.001) from 14.1days to 9.4days in the new patient group. More new patients were seen within 1week compared to baseline (50.6% versus 19.1%; P<0.0001). The mean number of new patient visits per month increased from 158.5 to 225.0 (P=0.0004). The cancellation rate and appointment lag times did not decrease for established patient visits, as expected because open-access scheduling was not implemented for this group. Access to care for new chronic pain patients improved with modified open-access scheduling. However, their mean cancellation rate only decreased from 35.7% to 31.5%, making this a marginally effective strategy to reduce cancellations.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 21%
Professor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Psychology 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,286,119
of 29,278,725 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
#346
of 2,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,679
of 334,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
#7
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,278,725 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.