Management of Test Results in Family Medicine Offices

Department of Family Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
The Annals of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.57). 07/2009; 7(4):343-51. DOI: 10.1370/afm.961
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We wanted to explore test results management systems in family medicine offices and to delineate the components of quality in results management.
Using a multimethod protocol, we intensively studied 4 purposefully chosen family medicine offices using observations, interviews, and surveys. Data analysis consisted of iterative qualitative analysis, descriptive frequencies, and individual case studies, followed by a comparative case analysis. We assessed the quality of results management at each practice by both the presence of and adherence to systemwide practices for each results management step, as well as outcomes from chart reviews, patient surveys, and interview and observation notes.
We found variability between offices in how they performed the tasks for each of the specific steps of results management. No office consistently had or adhered to office-wide results management practices, and only 2 offices had written protocols or procedures for any results management steps. Whereas most patients surveyed acknowledged receiving their test results (87% to 100%), a far smaller proportion of patient charts documented patient notification (58% to 85%), clinician response to the result (47% to 84%), and follow-up for abnormal results (28% to 55%). We found 2 themes that emerged as factors of importance in assessing test results management quality: safety awareness-a leadership focus and communication that occurs around quality and safety, teamwork in the office, and the presence of appropriate policies and procedures; and technological adoption-the presence of an electronic health record, digital connections between the office and testing facilities, use of technology to facilitate patient communication, and the presence of forcing functions (built-in safeguards and requirements).
Understanding the components of safety awareness and technological adoption can assist family medicine offices in evaluating their own results management processes and help them design systems that can lead to higher quality care.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore experiences and perceptions of frontline administrators involved in the systems-based management of laboratory test ordering and results handling in general medical practice. Qualitative using focus group interviews. West of Scotland general medical practices in three National Health Service (NHS) territorial board areas. Convenience samples of administrators (receptionists, healthcare assistants and phlebotomists). Transcript data were subjected to content analysis. A total of 40 administrative staff were recruited. Four key themes emerged: (1) system variations and weaknesses (eg, lack of a tracking process is a known risk that needs to be addressed). (2) Doctor to administrator communication (eg, unclear information can lead to emotional impacts and additional workload). (3) Informing patients of test results (eg, levels of anxiety and uncertainty are experienced by administrators influenced by experience and test result outcome) and (4) patient follow-up and confidentiality (eg, maintaining confidentiality in a busy reception area can be challenging). The key findings were explained in terms of sociotechnical systems theory. The study further confirms the safety-related problems associated with results handling systems and adds to our knowledge of the communication and psychosocial issues that can affect the health and well-being of staff and patients alike. However, opportunities exist for practices to identify barriers to safe care, and plan and implement system improvements to accommodate or mitigate the potential for human error in this complex area.
    BMJ Open 01/2014; 4(2):e004245. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004245 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective.To understand how the results of laboratory tests are communicated to patients in primary care and perceptions on how the process may be improved.Design.Qualitative study employing staff focus groups.Setting.Four UK primary care practices.Participants.Staff involved in the communication of test results.Findings.Five main themes emerged from the data: (i) the default method for communicating results differed between practices; (ii) clinical impact of results and patient characteristics such as anxiety level or health literacy influenced methods by which patients received their test result; (iii) which staff member had responsibility for the task was frequently unclear; (iv) barriers to communicating results existed, including there being no system or failsafe in place to determine whether results were returned to a practice or patient; (v) staff envisaged problems with a variety of test result communication methods discussed, including use of modern technologies, such as SMS messaging or online access.Conclusions.Communication of test results is a complex yet core primary care activity necessitating flexibility by both patients and staff. Dealing with the results from increasing numbers of tests is resource intensive and pressure on practice staff can be eased by greater utilization of electronic communication. Current systems appear vulnerable with no routine method of tracing delayed or missing results. Instead, practices only become aware of missing results following queries from patients. The creation of a test communication protocol for dissemination among patients and staff would help ensure both groups are aware of their roles and responsibilities.
    Family Practice 07/2014; 31(5). DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmu041 · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND The 'never event' concept has been implemented in many acute hospital settings to help prevent serious patient safety incidents. Benefits include increasing awareness of highly important patient safety risks among the healthcare workforce, promoting proactive implementation of preventive measures, and facilitating incident reporting. AIM To develop a preliminary list of never events for general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING Application of a range of consensus-building methods in Scottish and UK general practices. METHOD A total of 345 general practice team members suggested potential never events. Next, 'informed' staff (n =15) developed criteria for defining never events and applied the criteria to create a list of candidate never events. Finally, UK primary care patient safety 'experts' (n = 17) reviewed, refined, and validated a preliminary list via a modified Delphi group and by completing a content validity index exercise. RESULTS There were 721 written suggestions received as potential never events. Thematic categorisation reduced this to 38. Five criteria specific to general practice were developed and applied to produce 11 candidate never events. The expert group endorsed a preliminary list of 10 items with a content validity index (CVI) score of >80%. CONCLUSION A preliminary list of never events was developed for general practice through practitioner experience and consensus-building methods. This is an important first step to determine the potential value of the never event concept in this setting. It is now intended to undertake further testing of this preliminary list to assess its acceptability, feasibility, and potential usefulness as a safety improvement intervention.
    British Journal of General Practice 03/2014; 64(620):e159-67. DOI:10.3399/bjgp14X677536 · 2.36 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014