Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Editor- Jeremy Wood states that choose and book (CAB) is an
appointment system that has been imposed on us with detrimental effects
(1). The implementation of choose and book was intended to improve
attendance at clinics as the patients had the choice of hospital and the
time and date of appointment.
We have strong evidence that attendance in clinics is worse than the
traditional GP referrals. In a pilot study that we conducted at University
Hospital Lewisham we observed a difference of 18% (CAB) to 12% (GP) with
regards to non-attendance in the clinics. This difference was significant
in a chi-squared test (Chi-squared = 9.6, 1 d.f., p= 0.002). According to
a recent study the majority of patients are not experiencing a significant
choice over appointment time, date or hospital (2).
In our experience it is clear that CAB has failed to achieve its main
goal of improving patient satisfaction and attendance. Moreover it creates
an unnecessary economic burden on the health system and jeopardizes the
prioritization process by removing clinician involvement in
the process.
References
1. Patients get four choices for NHS treatments: Choose and book will hinder development of good outpatient services. Wood J.
BMJ 2006; Jan 21;332(7534):180
2. Does Choose & Book fail to deliver the expected choice of patients? A survey of patients’experience of
outpatient appointment booking. Green J, McDowall Z, Potts WWH. BMC Medical Informatics and decision making 2008; 8:36
Patient attendance in clinics is worse with Choose & book referrals
Editor- Jeremy Wood states that choose and book (CAB) is an
appointment system that has been imposed on us with detrimental effects
(1). The implementation of choose and book was intended to improve
attendance at clinics as the patients had the choice of hospital and the
time and date of appointment.
We have strong evidence that attendance in clinics is worse than the
traditional GP referrals. In a pilot study that we conducted at University
Hospital Lewisham we observed a difference of 18% (CAB) to 12% (GP) with
regards to non-attendance in the clinics. This difference was significant
in a chi-squared test (Chi-squared = 9.6, 1 d.f., p= 0.002). According to
a recent study the majority of patients are not experiencing a significant
choice over appointment time, date or hospital (2).
In our experience it is clear that CAB has failed to achieve its main
goal of improving patient satisfaction and attendance. Moreover it creates
an unnecessary economic burden on the health system and jeopardizes the
prioritization process by removing clinician involvement in
the process.
References
1. Patients get four choices for NHS treatments: Choose and book will hinder development of good outpatient services. Wood J.
BMJ 2006; Jan 21;332(7534):180
2. Does Choose & Book fail to deliver the expected choice of patients? A survey of patients’experience of
outpatient appointment booking. Green J, McDowall Z, Potts WWH. BMC Medical Informatics and decision making 2008; 8:36
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests