Table 3.

Changes in Patient Satisfaction, Staff Satisfaction, and No-Show Rates After Open Access Scheduling Implementation

	Pre-Intervention	Post-Intervention
Patient Satisfaction With Appointment Availability*	(n=484)	(n=426)
Practice 1	32%	45%
Practice 2	60%	56%
Practice 3	57%	47%
Practice 4	41%	56%
Practice 5	40%	N.A.#
Practice 6	53%	N.A.#
Staff Satisfaction with Appointment Availability **	(n=96)	(n=82)
Practice 1	14%	86%
Practice 2	53%	43%
Practice 3	74%	83%
Practice 4	9%	25%
Practice 5	7%	N.A.#
Practice 6	50%	N.A.#
No-Show Rates***	(n=49,603)	(n=115,167)
Practice 1	3%	3%
Practice 2	8%	7%
Practice 3	18%	17%
Practice 4	18%	16%
Practice 5	7%	5%
Practice 6	N.A.ˆ	N.A.ˆ

^*Number of responses for practices 1-4. For practices 1-3, percentage of respondents who rated “The length of time you waited to get your appointment today?” as “Excellent” the top rating on a five point Likert scale. For practices 4-6, percent of respondents who rated “In the last 6 months, when you scheduled an appointment to see your personal doctor, how often did you get an appointment as soon as you needed it?” as “Always” the top rating on a 5 point Likert scale

^**Number of responses for practices 1-4. Percentage of respondents who rated “Access to appointments” at the practice as “Very Good” or “Excellent” the top ratings on a five point Likert scale

^***Number of patient visits for practices 1-5.

^#Because of difficulties with implementation, practice leadership chose not to survey patients or staff post-intervention.

^ˆScheduling system did not allow for reporting of no-show rates. One practice changed scheduling system at time of intervention.

Note: Practice numbering does not correspond to order of practices in Table 2.