↓ Skip to main content

Using overbooking to manage no-shows in an Italian healthcare center

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
66 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.
Title
Using overbooking to manage no-shows in an Italian healthcare center
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2979-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiara Anna Parente, Domenico Salvatore, Giampiero Maria Gallo, Fabrizio Cipollini

Abstract

In almost all healthcare systems, no-shows (scheduled appointments missed without any notice from patients) have a negative impact on waiting lists, costs and resource utilization, impairing the quality and quantity of cares that could be provided, as well as the revenues from the corresponding activity. Overbooking is a tool healthcare providers can resort to reduce the impact of no-shows. We develop an overbooking algorithm, and we assess its effectiveness using two methods: an analysis of the data coming from a practical implementation in an healthcare center; a simulation experiment to check the robustness and the potential of the strategy under different conditions. The data of the study, which includes personal and administrative information of patients, together with their scheduled and attended examinations, was taken from the electronic database of a big outpatient center. The attention was focused on the Magnetic Resonance (MR) ward because it uses expensive equipment, its services need long execution times, and the center has actually used it to implement an overbooking strategy aimed at reducing the impact of no-shows. We propose a statistical model for the patient's show/no-show behavior and we evaluate the ensuing overbooking procedure implemented in the MR ward. Finally, a simulation study investigates the effects of the overbooking strategy under different scenarios. The first contribution is a list of variables to identify the factors performing the best to predict no-shows. We classified the variables in three groups: "Patient's intrinsic factors", "Exogenous factors" and "Factors associated with the examination". The second contribution is a predictive model of no-shows, which is estimated on context-specific data using the variables just discussed. Such a model represents a fundamental ingredient of the overbooking strategy we propose to reduce the negative effects of no-shows. The third contribution is the assessment of that strategy by means of a simulation study under different scenarios in terms of number of resources and no-show rates. The same overbooking strategy was also implemented in practice (giving the opportunity to consider it as a quasi-experiment) to reduce the negative impact caused by non attendance in the MR ward. Both the quasi-experiment and the simulation study demonstrated that the strategy improved the center's productivity and reduced idle time of resources, although it increased slightly the patient's waiting time and the staff's overtime. This represents an evidence that overbooking can be suitable to improve the management of healthcare centers without adversely affecting their costs and the quality of cares offered. We shown that a well designed overbooking procedure can improve the management of medical centers, in terms of a significant increase of revenue, while keeping patient's waiting time and overtime under control. This was demonstrated by the results of a quasi-experiment (practical implementation of the strategy in the MR ward) and a simulation study (under different scenarios). Such positive results took advantage from a predictive model of no-show carefully designed around the medical center data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 24 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Computer Science 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 32 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,806,404
of 23,563,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,208
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,969
of 335,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#52
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,563,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 335,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.