Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 2 February 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b396
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b396
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In 2006 Wood described how the choose and book appointment system had been imposed with detrimental effects.1 It was intended to improve attendance at clinics, patients choosing the hospital and the time and date of appointment.
We have found that attendance in clinics is worse with choose and book than with traditional general practitioner referrals. In a pilot study at our hospital we observed a significant difference of 18% (choose and book) v 12% (general practitioner) for non-attendance in clinics (
2=9.6, df=1, P=0.002). According to a recent study, most patients are not experiencing a significant choice in appointment time, date, or hospital.2
Choose and book has failed to achieve its main goal of improving patients satisfaction and attendance. Moreover, it creates an unnecessary economic burden on the health system and jeopardises the prioritisation process by removing clinicians from the process.
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b396
Prince Cheriyan Modayil, specialist registrar1, Rachael Hornigold, specialist registrar1, Raad John Glore, specialist registrar1, David A Bowdler, consultant1
1 Department of Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgery, University Hospital Lewisham, London SE13 6UF
princemodayil2000@yahoo.co.in
Read all Rapid Responses