Patient groups, clinicians and healthcare professionals agree – all test results need to be seen, understood and followed up
-
Maria R. Dahm
,
Andrew Georgiou
Abstract
Background
Diagnostic testing provides integral information for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of disease. Inadequate test result reporting and follow-up is a major risk to patient safety. Factors contributing to failure to follow-up test results include unclear delineation of responsibility about who is meant to act on a test result; poor coordination across different levels of care; and the absence of integrated health information systems for the efficient information communication.
Methods
A 2016 Australian Stakeholder Forum brought together over 30 representatives from 14 different consumer, clinical and management stakeholder organisations to discuss safe and effective test result communication, management and follow-up. Thematic analysis was conducted drawing on multimodal data collected in the form of observational fieldnotes and document artefacts produced by participants.
Results
The forum identified major challenges which pose immediate risks to patient safety. Participants recommended priorities for addressing issues relating to: (i) the governance of test result management processes; (ii) integration of health care processes through the utilisation of effective digital health solutions; and (iii) involving patients as key partners in the decision-making and care process.
Conclusions
Stakeholder groups diverged slightly in their priorities. Consumers highlighted the lack of patient involvement in the test result management process but were less concerned about standardisation of reports and critical result thresholds than pathologists. The forum foregrounded the need for a systems approach, capable of identifying and addressing interconnections and multiple factors that contribute to poor test result follow-up, with a strong emphasis on enhancing the contribution of patients.
Author contribution: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: This forum was held as part of a larger project funded under the National Health and Medical Research Council, Partnership Project Grant number 1111925.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Berger D. A brief history of medical diagnosis and the birth of the clinical laboratory. Part 2 – laboratory science and professional certification in the 20th century. MLO Med Lab Obs 1999;31:32.Suche in Google Scholar
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Laboratory medicine: a national status report. Fall Church, VA: The Lewin Group, 2008.Suche in Google Scholar
3. ECRI Institute. Top 10 Patient Safety Concerns for Healthcare Organizations. Available at: www.ecri.org/PatientSafetyTop10. Accessed: 6 July 2017.Suche in Google Scholar
4. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. The OSSIE guide to clinical handover improvement. Sydney: ACSQHC, 2009.Suche in Google Scholar
5. Callen J, Georgiou A, Li J, Westbrook J. The safety implications of missed test results for hospitalized patients: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:194–9.10.1136/bmjqs.2010.044339Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
6. Clinical Excellence Commission NSW Government. Incident Management. Available at: http://www.cec.health.nsw.gov.au/incident-management/incident-reporting. Accessed: 30 July 2018.Suche in Google Scholar
7. Clinical Excellence Commission. Clinical Focus Report: Diagnostic tests – How access and follow-up affect patient outcomes. 2012. Available at: http://www.cec.health.nsw.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0007/259198/patient-safety-report-diagnostic-tests.pdf. Accessed: 30 July 2018.Suche in Google Scholar
8. Saleem JJ, Russ AL, Neddo A, Blades PT, Doebbeling BN, Foresman BH. Paper persistence, workarounds, and communication breakdowns in computerized consultation management. Int J Med Inform 2011;80:466–79.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.03.016Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
9. National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press, 2015.Suche in Google Scholar
10. Dahm MR, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Greenfield D, Horvath AR, Wakefield D, et al. Delivering safe and effective test-result communication, management and follow-up: a mixed-methods study protocol. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020235.10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020235Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.10.1191/1478088706qp063oaSuche in Google Scholar
12. Georgiou A, Lymer S, Forster M, Strachan M, Graham S, Hirst G, et al. Lessons learned from the introduction of an electronic safety net to enhance test result management in an Australian mothers’ hospital. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;21:1104–8.10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002466Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Ash J, Singh H, Sittig DF. Test Results Reporting and Follow-Up SAFER Guide. November 2016. Available at: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/safer_test_results_reporting.pdf. Accessed: 30 July 2018.Suche in Google Scholar
14. Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). Guideline on pathology testing in the Emergency Department. Available at: https://www.rcpa.edu.au/getattachment/8424e33b-8688-4c7d-b5ab-fbc4c38bccb9/Pathology-Testing-in-the-Emergency-Department.aspx. Accessed: 30 July 2018.Suche in Google Scholar
15. NSW Health. Health Care Records – Documentation and Management. 2012. Available at: https://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/ActivePDSDocuments/PD2012_069.pdf. Accessed: 30 July 2018.Suche in Google Scholar
16. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.Suche in Google Scholar
17. Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004;11:104–12.10.1197/jamia.M1471Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Menon S, Murphy DR, Singh H, Meyer AN, Sittig DF. Workarounds and test results follow-up in electronic health record-based primary care. Appl Clin Inform 2016;7:543–59.10.4338/ACI-2015-10-RA-0135Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Eikey EV, Reddy MC, Kuziemsky CE. Examining the role of collaboration in studies of health information technologies in biomedical informatics: a systematic review of 25 years of research. J Biomed Inform 2015;57:263–77.10.1016/j.jbi.2015.08.006Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Feufel MA, Robinson FE, Shalin VL. The impact of medical record technologies on collaboration in emergency medicine. Int J Med Inform 2011;80:e85–95.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.09.008Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Dalal AK, Poon EG, Karson AS, Gandhi TK, Roy CL. Lessons learned from implementation of a computerized application for pending tests at hospital discharge. J Hosp Med 2011;6:16–21.10.1002/jhm.794Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can electronic clinical documentation help prevent diagnostic errors? N Engl J Med 2010;362:1066–9.10.1056/NEJMp0911734Suche in Google Scholar
23. Dalal AK, Roy CL, Poon EG, Williams DH, Nolido N, Yoon C, et al. Impact of an automated email notification system for results of tests pending at discharge: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;21:473–80.10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002030Suche in Google Scholar
24. Hysong SJ, Sawhney MK, Wilson L, Sittig DF, Esquivel A, Singh S, et al. Understanding the management of electronic test result notifications in the outpatient setting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011;11:22.10.1186/1472-6947-11-22Suche in Google Scholar
25. Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Russo E, Sittig DF, Wei L, Singh H. The burden of inbox notifications in commercial electronic health records. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:559–60.10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0209Suche in Google Scholar
26. Smith MW, Hughes AM, Brown C, Russo E, Giardina TD, Mehta P, et al. Test results management and distributed cognition in electronic health record – enabled primary care. Health Informatics J 2018:1–14. doi:10.1177/1460458218779114. [In Press].10.1177/1460458218779114Suche in Google Scholar
27. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Hoerbst A. The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: a systematic review of controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e162.10.2196/jmir.2238Suche in Google Scholar
28. Christensen K, Sue VM. Viewing laboratory test results online: patients’ actions and reactions. J Participat Med 2013;5:e38.Suche in Google Scholar
29. Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Kushniruk AW. The patient clinical information system (PatCIS): technical solutions for and experience with giving patients access to their electronic medical records. Int J Med Inform 2002;68:113–27.10.1016/S1386-5056(02)00070-9Suche in Google Scholar
30. Giardina TD, Baldwin J, Nystrom DT, Sittig DF, Singh H. Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017;25:440–6.10.1093/jamia/ocx140Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
31. Giardina TD, Modi V, Parrish DE, Singh H. The patient portal and abnormal test results: an exploratory study of patient experiences. Patient Exp J 2015;2:148–54.10.35680/2372-0247.1055Suche in Google Scholar
32. Bell SK, Gerard M, Fossa A, Delbanco T, Folcarelli PH, Sands KE, et al. A patient feedback reporting tool for OpenNotes: implications for patient-clinician safety and quality partnerships. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:312–22.10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006020Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
33. Graedon T, Graedon J. Let patients help with diagnosis. Diagnosis 2014;1:49–51.10.1515/dx-2013-0006Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Baldwin JL, Singh H, Sittig DF, Giardina TD. Patient portals and health apps: pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other. Healthc 2017;5:81–5.10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.08.004Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
35. World Health Organisation, World Alliance for Patient Safety. Research priority setting working group. World alliance for patient safety – summary of the evidence on patient safety: implications for research. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.Suche in Google Scholar
36. Watt S. Quality use of pathology consumer consultation project. 11th National Rural Health Conference, Perth, Australia. 2011. Available at: http://ruralhealth.org.au/11nrhc/papers/11th%20NRHC%20Watt_Sarah_D5.pdf. Accessed: 30 July 2018.Suche in Google Scholar
37. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:89.10.1186/1472-6963-14-89Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorials
- Learning from tragedy – improving diagnosis through case reviews
- Diagnostic test accuracy: a valuable tool for promoting quality and patient safety
- Review
- Blinding or information control in diagnosis: could it reduce errors in clinical decision-making?
- Opinion Paper
- System-related and cognitive errors in laboratory medicine
- Original Articles
- The Assessment of Reasoning Tool (ART): structuring the conversation between teachers and learners
- Determining qualitative effect size ratings using a likelihood ratio scatter matrix in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews
- Patient groups, clinicians and healthcare professionals agree – all test results need to be seen, understood and followed up
- Teaching about diagnostic errors through virtual patient cases: a pilot exploration
- Using computerized virtual cases to explore diagnostic error in practicing physicians
- “Closing the loop”: a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs
- Case-based simulation empowering pediatric residents to communicate about diagnostic uncertainty
- Letters to the Editor
- Capturing diagnostic errors in incident reporting systems: value of a specific “DX Tile” for diagnosis-related concerns
- PSA-based, prostate cancer risk on-line calculators: no such thing as a crystal ball?
- Learning from Error
- Learning from tragedy: the Julia Berg story
- Acknowledgment
- Congress Abstracts
- Diagnostic Error in Medicine
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorials
- Learning from tragedy – improving diagnosis through case reviews
- Diagnostic test accuracy: a valuable tool for promoting quality and patient safety
- Review
- Blinding or information control in diagnosis: could it reduce errors in clinical decision-making?
- Opinion Paper
- System-related and cognitive errors in laboratory medicine
- Original Articles
- The Assessment of Reasoning Tool (ART): structuring the conversation between teachers and learners
- Determining qualitative effect size ratings using a likelihood ratio scatter matrix in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews
- Patient groups, clinicians and healthcare professionals agree – all test results need to be seen, understood and followed up
- Teaching about diagnostic errors through virtual patient cases: a pilot exploration
- Using computerized virtual cases to explore diagnostic error in practicing physicians
- “Closing the loop”: a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs
- Case-based simulation empowering pediatric residents to communicate about diagnostic uncertainty
- Letters to the Editor
- Capturing diagnostic errors in incident reporting systems: value of a specific “DX Tile” for diagnosis-related concerns
- PSA-based, prostate cancer risk on-line calculators: no such thing as a crystal ball?
- Learning from Error
- Learning from tragedy: the Julia Berg story
- Acknowledgment
- Congress Abstracts
- Diagnostic Error in Medicine
