SUMMARYUnkept outpatient appointments are a drain on resources. In a prospective study we asked non-attenders at a gastroenterology clinic why they had missed their appointment.103 patients missed their appointment (14% of the total invited); 3 had died. The remaining 100 were asked to complete questionnaires, 68 by mail (43 returned) and 32 by telephone (30 successful); the response rate was thus 73%. 49 of the respondents were new patients, 6 of them with urgent referrals. The explanations for non-attendance by the 73 patients were: forgot to attend or to cancel (30%); no reason (26%); clerical errors (10%); felt better (8%), fearful of being seen by junior doctor (3%); inpatient in another hospital (3%); miscellaneous other (20%). 13 (27%) of the review patients had not kept one or more previous appointments. The non-attendance rates for different clinics ranged from 10% to 25% (average 14%).A substantial number of non-attenders claimed to have forgotten their appointment or to cancel it. If, as we surmise, this re¯ects apathy, no strategy to improve attendance is likely to have great impact. Since the nonattendance rate is reasonably constant, it can be taken into account when patients are booked.

BackgroundInfliximab is usually administered by two monthly intravenous (iv) infusions, therefore requiring visits to hospital. Adalimumab is administered by self subcutaneous (sc) injections every other week. Both of these anti-TNF drugs appear to be equally efficacious in the treatment of Crohn's Disease and therefore the decision regarding which drug to choose will depend to some extent on patient choice, which may be based on the mode of administration.The aims of this study were to compare preferences in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients for two currently available anti-TNF agents and the reasons for their choices.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was distributed to IBD patients who had attended the Gastroenterology service (Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, Belfast, N. Ireland. UK) between January 2007 and December 2007. The patients were asked in a hypothetical situation if the following administering methods of anti-TNF drugs (intravenous or subcutaneous) were available, which drug route of administration would they choose.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-five patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were issued questionnaires, of these 78 questionnaires were returned (62 percent response). The mean age of respondent was 44 years. Of the total number of respondents, 33 patients (42 percent) preferred infliximab and 19 patients (24 percent) preferred adalimumab (p = 0.07). Twenty-six patients (33 percent) did not indicate a preference for either biological therapy and were not included in the final analysis. The commonest reason cited for those who chose infliximab (iv) was: "I do not like the idea of self-injecting," (67 percent). For those patients who preferred adalimumab (sc) the commonest reason cited was: "I prefer the convenience of injecting at home," (79 percent). Of those patients who had previously been treated with an anti-TNF therapy (n = 10, all infliximab) six patients stated that they would prefer infliximab if given the choice in the future (p = 0.75).ConclusionsThere was a trend towards patient preference for infliximab (iv) treatment as opposed to adalimumab (sc) in patients with IBD. This difference may be due to the frequency of administration, mode of administration or differing 'times in the market-place', as infliximab had been approved for a longer period of time in Crohn's disease. Further studies are required in IBD patients to investigate whether patient choice will affect compliance, patient satisfaction and efficacy of treatment with anti-TNF therapies.

Unkept outpatient appointments are a drain on resources. In a prospective study we asked non-attenders at a gastroenterology clinic why they had missed their appointment. 103 patients missed their appointment (14% of the total invited); 3 had died. The remaining 100 were asked to complete questionnaires, 68 by mail (43 returned) and 32 by telephone (30 successful); the response rate was thus 73%. 49 of the respondents were new patients, 6 of them with urgent referrals. The explanations for non-attendance by the 73 patients were: forgot to attend or to cancel (30%); no reason (26%); clerical errors (10%); felt better (8%), fearful of being seen by junior doctor (3%); inpatient in another hospital (3%); miscellaneous other (20%). 13 (27%) of the review patients had not kept one or more previous appointments. The non-attendance rates for different clinics ranged from 10% to 25% (average 14%). A substantial number of non-attenders claimed to have forgotten their appointment or to cancel it. If, as we surmise, this reflects apathy, no strategy to improve attendance is likely to have great impact. Since the non-attendance rate is reasonably constant, it can be taken into account when patients are booked.

This study demonstrated the potential contribution community pharmacists could make at the time of dispensing to the management of patients with angina.