“I Wish I Had Seen This Test Result Earlier!”: Dissatisfaction With Test Result Management Systems in Primary Care | Pathology and Laboratory Medicine | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.129.82. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Murff  HJBates  DW Notifying patients of abnormal results. KG  ShojaniaBW  DuncanKM  McDonaldRB  WachterAJ  Markowitzeds. Making Health Care Safer A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices Rockville, Md Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2001;Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43Google Scholar
2.
Meza  JPWebster  DS Patient preferences for laboratory test results notification.  Am J Manag Care 2000;61297- 1300PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Murff  HJGandhi  TKKarson  AS  et al.  Primary care physician attitudes concerning follow-up of abnormal test results and decision support systems.  Int J Med Inf 2003;71137- 149PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Marcus  ACKaplan  CPCrane  LA  et al.  Reducing loss-to-follow-up among women with abnormal Pap smears: results from a randomized trial testing an intensive follow-up protocol and economic incentives.  Med Care 1998;36397- 410PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Haas  JSCook  EFPuopolo  ALBurstin  HRBrennan  TA Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint.  J Gen Intern Med 2000;15321- 328PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Solomon  CGGoel  PKLarsen  PRTanasijevic  MBates  DW Thyroid function testing in an ambulatory setting: identifying suboptimal patterns of use.  J Gen Intern Med 1996;11(suppl)88Google Scholar
7.
Poon  EHaas  JSPuopolo  AL  et al.  Communication factors involved in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms.  J Gen Intern Med 2004;19316- 323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Marcus  ACCrane  LAKaplan  CP  et al.  Improving adherence to screening follow-up among women with abnormal Pap smears: results from a large clinic-based trial of three intervention strategies.  Med Care 1992;30216- 230PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Kravitz  RLRolph  JEPetersen  L Omission-related malpractice claims and the limits of defensive medicine.  Med Care Res Rev 1997;54456- 471PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Patient fact sheet: 20 tips to help prevent medical error. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/20tips.htm. Accessed August 24, 2004
11.
Berwick  DM A primer on leading the improvement of systems.  BMJ 1996;312619- 622PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Boohaker  EAWard  REUman  JEMcCarthy  BD Patient notification and follow-up of abnormal test results: a physician survey.  Arch Intern Med 1996;156327- 331PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Risk Management Foundation, Reducing office practice risks.  Forum 2000;202Google Scholar
14.
Flynn  EABarker  KNPepper  GABates  DWMikeal  RL Comparison of methods for detecting medication errors in 36 hospitals and skilled-nursing facilities.  Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002;59436- 446PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Edlavitch  SA Adverse drug event reporting: improving the low US reporting rates.  Arch Intern Med 1988;1481499- 1503PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Harris Interactive and ARiA Marketing, Healthcare Satisfaction Study.  Rochester, NY Harris Interactive2000;
17.
Institute of Medicine, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2001;
18.
Poon  EGWang  SJGandhi  TKBates  DWKuperman  GJ Design and implementation of a comprehensive outpatient results manager.  J Biomed Inform 2003;3680- 91PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Lowes  R Patient-centered care for better patient adherence.  Fam Pract Manag 1998;546- 47PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Arnsten  JHGelfand  JMSinger  DE Determinants of compliance with anticoagulation: a case-control study.  Am J Med 1997;10311- 17PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
DiMatteo  MR Enhancing patient adherence to medical recommendations.  JAMA 1994;27179- 83PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Reason  JT Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.  Brookfield, Vt Ashgate Publishing Co1997;
23.
Reason  J Human Error.  Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press1990;
24.
Harbrecht  MG Using a comprehensive breast program to illustrate ways to improve patient safety.  Paper presented at: National Ambulatory Primary Care Research and Education Conference on Patient Safety September 18, 2003 Chicago, Ill
Original Investigation
November 8, 2004

“I Wish I Had Seen This Test Result Earlier!”: Dissatisfaction With Test Result Management Systems in Primary Care

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass (Drs Poon, Gandhi, Sequist, and Bates); Nashville VA Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (Dr Murff); and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Dr Karson).

Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(20):2223-2228. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.20.2223
Abstract

Background  Failure to review and follow up on outpatient test results in a timely manner represents a patient safety and malpractice concern. Therefore, we sought to identify problems in current test result management systems and possible ways to improve these systems.

Methods  We surveyed 262 physicians working in 15 internal medicine practices affiliated with 2 large urban teaching hospitals (response rate, 64%). We asked physicians about systems they used and the amount of time they spent managing test results. We asked them to report delays in reviewing test results and their overall satisfaction with their management of test results. We also asked physicians to rate features they would find useful in a new test result management system.

Results  Overall, 83% of respondents reported at least 1 delay in reviewing test results during the previous 2 months. Despite reporting that they spent on average 74 minutes per clinical day managing test results, only 41% of physicians reported being satisfied with how they managed test results. Satisfaction was associated with fewer self-reported delays in reviewing test results. Physicians who actively tracked their test orders to completion were also more likely to be satisfied. The most highly desired features of a test result management system were tools to help physicians generate result letters to patients, prioritize their workflow, and track test orders to completion.

Conclusions  Delays in test result review are common, and many physicians are not satisfied with how they manage test results. Tools to improve test result management in office practices need to improve workflow efficiency and track test orders to completion.

×