Cargando…

Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice

BACKGROUND: The number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase and the timely and appropriate communication of results remains essential. However, the testing and result communication process includes a number of participants in a variety of settings and is both complicated to m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Litchfield, Ian, Bentham, Louise, Lilford, Richard, McManus, Richard J, Hill, Ann, Greenfield, Sheila
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4680128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26243888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003712
_version_ 1782405635309043712
author Litchfield, Ian
Bentham, Louise
Lilford, Richard
McManus, Richard J
Hill, Ann
Greenfield, Sheila
author_facet Litchfield, Ian
Bentham, Louise
Lilford, Richard
McManus, Richard J
Hill, Ann
Greenfield, Sheila
author_sort Litchfield, Ian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase and the timely and appropriate communication of results remains essential. However, the testing and result communication process includes a number of participants in a variety of settings and is both complicated to manage and vulnerable to human error. In the UK, guidelines for the process are absent and research in this area is surprisingly scarce; so before we can begin to address potential areas of weakness there is a need to more precisely understand the strengths and weaknesses of current systems used by general practices and testing facilities. METHODS: We conducted a telephone survey of practices across England to determine the methods of managing the testing and result communication process. In order to gain insight into the perspectives from staff at a large hospital laboratory we conducted paired interviews with senior managers, which we used to inform a service blueprint demonstrating the interaction between practices and laboratories and identifying potential sources of delay and failure. RESULTS: Staff at 80% of practices reported that the default method for communicating normal results required patients to telephone the practice and 40% of practices required that patients also call for abnormal results. Over 80% had no fail-safe system for ensuring that results had been returned to the practice from laboratories; practices would otherwise only be aware that results were missing or delayed when patients requested results. Persistent sources of missing results were identified by laboratory staff and included sample handling, misidentification of samples and the inefficient system for collating and resending misdirected results. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the current system relies on patients both to retrieve results and in so doing alert staff to missing and delayed results. Practices appear slow to adopt available technological solutions despite their potential for reducing the impact of recurring errors in the handling of samples and the reporting of results. Our findings will inform our continuing work with patients and staff to develop, implement and evaluate improvements to existing systems of managing the testing and result communication process.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4680128
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46801282015-12-18 Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice Litchfield, Ian Bentham, Louise Lilford, Richard McManus, Richard J Hill, Ann Greenfield, Sheila BMJ Qual Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: The number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase and the timely and appropriate communication of results remains essential. However, the testing and result communication process includes a number of participants in a variety of settings and is both complicated to manage and vulnerable to human error. In the UK, guidelines for the process are absent and research in this area is surprisingly scarce; so before we can begin to address potential areas of weakness there is a need to more precisely understand the strengths and weaknesses of current systems used by general practices and testing facilities. METHODS: We conducted a telephone survey of practices across England to determine the methods of managing the testing and result communication process. In order to gain insight into the perspectives from staff at a large hospital laboratory we conducted paired interviews with senior managers, which we used to inform a service blueprint demonstrating the interaction between practices and laboratories and identifying potential sources of delay and failure. RESULTS: Staff at 80% of practices reported that the default method for communicating normal results required patients to telephone the practice and 40% of practices required that patients also call for abnormal results. Over 80% had no fail-safe system for ensuring that results had been returned to the practice from laboratories; practices would otherwise only be aware that results were missing or delayed when patients requested results. Persistent sources of missing results were identified by laboratory staff and included sample handling, misidentification of samples and the inefficient system for collating and resending misdirected results. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the current system relies on patients both to retrieve results and in so doing alert staff to missing and delayed results. Practices appear slow to adopt available technological solutions despite their potential for reducing the impact of recurring errors in the handling of samples and the reporting of results. Our findings will inform our continuing work with patients and staff to develop, implement and evaluate improvements to existing systems of managing the testing and result communication process. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-11 2015-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4680128/ /pubmed/26243888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003712 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Research
Litchfield, Ian
Bentham, Louise
Lilford, Richard
McManus, Richard J
Hill, Ann
Greenfield, Sheila
Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice
title Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice
title_full Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice
title_fullStr Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice
title_full_unstemmed Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice
title_short Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice
title_sort test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4680128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26243888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003712
work_keys_str_mv AT litchfieldian testresultcommunicationinprimarycareasurveyofcurrentpractice
AT benthamlouise testresultcommunicationinprimarycareasurveyofcurrentpractice
AT lilfordrichard testresultcommunicationinprimarycareasurveyofcurrentpractice
AT mcmanusrichardj testresultcommunicationinprimarycareasurveyofcurrentpractice
AT hillann testresultcommunicationinprimarycareasurveyofcurrentpractice
AT greenfieldsheila testresultcommunicationinprimarycareasurveyofcurrentpractice