[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.94.5. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Invited Commentary
July 11, 2011

Advanced Access—Fad or Important?Comment on “Advanced Access Scheduling Outcomes”

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliation: HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1159-1160. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.169

Advanced access (AA) burst onto the primary care redesign scene over 10 years ago, led by Murray and Berwick1 and Murray and Tantau,2,3 who helped several medical groups implement it and became key advocates and facilitators for its spread. This disruptive innovation in scheduling was widely accepted for multiple reasons: (1) health care was ready for any change that might improve patient satisfaction; (2) AA provided advantages for clinicians and clinic staff as well as patients; and (3) Murray, Berwick, and Tantau provided very specific tools and actions needed to implement it. This readiness for the AA change was reinforced in 2001, when the now famous report from the Institute of Medicine,4 “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” called for attention to 6 domains of quality, including timeliness.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×