Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
Protected appointment-based waiting list strategies are associated with waiting time reductions in outpatient and community health services: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Many different approaches are used to manage demand and reduce waiting lists in outpatient and community health settings. This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence for models of care which are based on the principle of protecting capacity for new patients.
Methods
We conducted a systematic search of Medline (Ovid), Embase, PyscINFO and CINAHL from inception until April 2024. Eligible studies included use of a protected appointment model in an outpatient and community health service and compared data on measures of waiting. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was used to evaluate evidence certainty for meta-analyses.
Results
A total of 26 studies were included in the review. Most studies described a specific, named model incorporating protected appointments, such as Open Access (n = 7), Advanced Access (n = 6), the Specific Timely Assessment and Triage Model (n = 6), and the Choice and Partnership Approach (n = 4). A single stepped wedge randomised controlled trial (n = 3,113) provided moderate certainty evidence of a large reduction in time from referral to first appointment (IRR −0.66, 95% CI −0.85 to −0.52), with a median reduction of 34%. Eight non-randomised studies of intervention (n = 43,655) provided moderate certainty evidence of a moderate to large reduction in waiting time (SMD = −0.66, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.36) with a weighted mean reduction of 81%. Studies that could not be included in the meta-analyses supported these findings. Five studies measured waiting list size and all reported reductions ranging from 44% to 98%. Other findings associated with interventions included increased service productivity and improved patient satisfaction.
Conclusions
Waiting list reduction strategies incorporating protected appointments are associated with moderate to large reductions in waiting time in outpatient and community health services.
McIntyreDChowCK. Waiting time as an indicator for health services under strain: a narrative review. Inquiry2020; 57: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958020910305
2.
Gonçalves‐BradleyDKhanguraJKFlodgrenG, et al.Primary care professionals providing non‐urgent care in hospital emergency departments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 2018: CD002097.
3.
LewisAKHardingKESnowdonDA, et al.Reducing wait time from referral to first visit for community outpatient services may contribute to better health outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res2018; 18: 869. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3669-6
4.
DéryJRuizARouthierF, et al.A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services. Syst Rev2020; 9: 1–227. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01482-8
ClarkSEmberlyDPajerK, et al.Improving access to child and adolescent mental health care: the choice and partnership approach. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry2018; 27: 5–14.
7.
HardingKELeggatSGWattsJJ, et al.A model of access combining triage with initial management reduced waiting time for community outpatient services: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Med2018; 16: 182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1170-z
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
10.
DownsSHBlackN. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health1998; 52: 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377
11.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics1977; 33: 159–174.
12.
HoffmannTCGlasziouPPBoutronI, et al.Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ2014; 348: g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687
13.
ReevesBCDeeksJJHigginsJPT, et al.Including non-randomized studies on intervention effects. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2024. Chapter 24. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
14.
SchünemannHJHigginsJPTVistGE, et al.Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2024. Chapter 14. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
15.
BrownRCCoombesJSJungbluth RodriguezK, et al.Effectiveness of exercise via telehealth for chronic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise interventions delivered via videoconferencing. Br J Sports Med2022; 56: 1042–1052. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-105118
16.
McKenzieJEBrennanSE. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2024. Chapter 12. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
17.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Routledge, 1988.
18.
ZengLBrignardello-PetersenRHultcrantzM, et al.GRADE guidance 34: update on rating imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach. J Clin Epidemiol2022; 150: 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.014
19.
BrennanSEJohnstonRV. Research note: interpreting findings of a systematic review using GRADE methods. J Physiother2023; 69: 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2023.05.012
20.
PickinMO'CathainASampsonFC, et al.Evaluation of advanced access in the national primary care collaborative. Br J Gen Pract2004; 54: 334–340.
21.
van der VoortMRvan MerodeFGBerdenBH. Making sense of delays in outpatient specialty care: a system perspective. Health Policy2010; 97(1): 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.02.013
22.
van der VoortMRvan WijngaardenJJanssenS, et al.Sustainability of improvements in access to outpatient specialist care in the Netherlands. J Health Serv Res Policy2014; 19: 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819613509083
23.
HardingKESnowdonDAPrendergastL, et al.Sustainable waiting time reductions after introducing the STAT model for access and triage: 12-month follow up of a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res2020; 20: 968. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05824-z
AustinJManning-CourtneyPJohnsonML, et al.Improving access to care at autism treatment centers: a system analysis approach. Pediatrics2016; 137(Suppl 2): S149–S157. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-2851M
26.
BelardiFGWeirSCraigFW. A controlled trial of an advanced access appointment system in a residency family medicine center. Fam Med2004; 36: 341–345.
27.
BundyDGRandolphGDMurrayM, et al.Open access in primary care: results of a North Carolina pilot project. Pediatrics2005; 116: 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2573
28.
GrambeauKA. Improving patient access to primary care with open access scheduling. J Med Pract Manag2020; 36: 59–63.
29.
Matteson-KomeMLLopezKTSligerAD, et al.Improving care access for new patients in an outpatient gastroenterology clinic: a novel approach. Mo Med2014; 111: 512–515.
30.
ParenteDHPintoMBBarberJC. A pre-post comparison of service operational efficiency and patient satisfaction under open access scheduling. Health Care Manag Rev2005; 30: 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004010-200507000-00006
31.
RomanMClarkRShirwanyN, et al.A veterans affairs primary care same-day open access for new patients optimized redesigned system (VA-HONORS): a six-year analysis of 22,220 patient records. Joint Comm J Qual Saf2021; 47: 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.10.004
32.
Sperl-HillenJMSolbergLIHroscikoskiMC, et al.The effect of advanced access implementation on quality of diabetes care. Prev Chronic Dis2008; 5: A16.
33.
HardingKEBottrellJ. Specific timely appointments for triage reduced waiting lists in an outpatient physiotherapy service. Physiotherapy2016; 102: 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.10.011
34.
HardingKELewisAKDennettA, et al.An evidence based demand management strategy using a hub and spoke training model reduces waiting time for children's therapy services: an implementation trial. Child Care Health Dev2024; 50: e13154. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13154
35.
HardingKELeggatSGBowersBD, et al.Reducing waiting time for community rehabilitation services: a controlled before-and-after trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2013; 94: 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.207
36.
LewisAKTaylorNFCarneyPW, et al.Sustainability of an intervention to reduce waiting for access to an epilepsy outpatient clinic. Heliyon2024; 10: e23346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23346
37.
LewisAKTaylorNFCarneyPW, et al.An innovative model of access and triage to reduce waiting in an outpatient epilepsy clinic: an intervention study. BMC Health Serv Res2023; 23: 933. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09845-2
38.
NaughtonJNLCarrollMBasuS, et al.Clinical change after the implementation of the choice and partnership approach within an Australian child and adolescent mental health service. Child Adolesc Ment Health2018; 23: 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12208
39.
NaughtonJBasuSO'DowdF, et al.Improving quality of a rural CAMHS service using the choice and partnership approach. Australas Psychiatry2015; 23(5): 561–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856215597537
40.
FugglePMcHughAGoreL, et al.Can we improve service efficiency in CAMHS using the CAPA approach without reducing treatment effectiveness?J Child Health Care2016; 20: 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493514563856
41.
PhillipsKMacintyreLNMcMullanA. Signpost appointments in an adult psychological therapies team. Ment Health Rev2018; 23: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-08-2017-0033
42.
SalisburyCMontgomeryAASimonsL, et al.Impact of advanced access on access, workload, and continuity: controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study. Br J Gen Pract2007; 57: 608–614.
43.
CameronSSadlerLLawsonB. Adoption of open-access scheduling in an academic family practice. Can Fam Physician2010; 56: 906–911.
44.
SpeedDFyffeS. Investigating open-access booking in New Brunswick occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther2020; 87: 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417420968683
45.
JohannessenKAAlexandersenN. Improving accessibility for outpatients in specialist clinics: reducing long waiting times and waiting lists with a simple analytic approach. BMC Health Serv Res2018; 18: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3635-3
46.
SpeedD. Improving administrative outcomes in physiotherapy by adopting open-access booking. Physiother Can2022; 74: 184–194. https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc-2020-0071
47.
HardingKETaylorNFBowersB, et al.Clinician and patient perspectives of a new model of triage in a community rehabilitation program that reduced waiting time: a qualitative analysis. Aust Health Rev2013; 37: 324–330. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH13033
48.
AlmagadiMAS. Enhancing administrative performance in the health sector through artificial intelligence: pathways to operational efficiency and service quality. J Int Crisis Risk Commun Res2025; 8: 194–201. https://doi.org/10.63278/jicrcr.vi.3137
49.
ShahNBalaJSharmaA, et al.Challenges and implications of the use of artificial intelligence in health care, with an emphasis on nursing. Scoping review. Invest Educ Enfermería2025; 43: e15. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v43n3e15
50.
SidesTKbaierDFarrellT, et al.Bridging trust gaps: stakeholder perspectives on AI adoption in the United Kingdom NHS primary care. Digit Health2025; 11: 20552076251386706. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251386706
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
