Background: Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.
Objectives: To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.
Methods: The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.
Results: Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.
Limitations: The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.
Conclusions: The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.
Future research: Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.
Study registration: This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).
Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Keywords: HOSPITAL CARE; MIXED METHODS EVALUATION; OPEN ACCESS; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT-INITIATED.
When someone visits hospital for an operation or an ongoing condition, they are given follow-up appointments at clinics, often after 6 months. The National Health Service thinks that many of these appointments are not necessary because they are not useful to patients. Also, outside fixed appointments, patients are not always being seen when they are most in need. Hospitals have been testing new ways to improve services. We looked at hospital data and discussed interesting findings with hospitals themselves to see if we could find approaches that worked. We then looked at one new approach called Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. Patients using Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can book appointments when they are needed, rather than at a pre-planned time. We explored how Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was being used in hospitals, what effect it was having and what patients and National Health Service staff thought about it. We studied hospital data and interviewed patients and National Health Service staff. We found that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up works differently depending on the hospital and the patient’s condition. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is most frequently used for patients needing short-term follow-up, such as after an operation. It is also starting to be used for patients with long-term chronic conditions. National Health Service staff think that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can benefit patients, although some may find it easier to use than others. Patients appear to like Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, but some still prefer to let the hospital schedule appointments. From data it appears that for some conditions, where more patients use Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, fewer follow-up visits are required. For a few conditions, there is evidence of fewer emergency department visits, but the overall impact is small. We interviewed staff from a small number of hospitals and four patients, so what we found may not apply across the National Health Service. We also developed a guide to help hospitals evaluate the success of their own Patient-Initiated Follow-Up services.