Cargando…

Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Delay or failure to view test results in a hospital setting can lead to delayed diagnosis, risk of patient harm, and represents inefficiency. Factors influencing this were investigated to identify how timeliness and completeness of test review could be improved through an evidence-based...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Challen, Robert, Tsaneva-Atanasova, Krasimira, Edwards, Tom, Gompels, Luke, Dayer, Mark, Pitt, Martin, Danon, Leon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32734170
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa003
_version_ 1783563279244722176
author Challen, Robert
Tsaneva-Atanasova, Krasimira
Edwards, Tom
Gompels, Luke
Dayer, Mark
Pitt, Martin
Danon, Leon
author_facet Challen, Robert
Tsaneva-Atanasova, Krasimira
Edwards, Tom
Gompels, Luke
Dayer, Mark
Pitt, Martin
Danon, Leon
author_sort Challen, Robert
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Delay or failure to view test results in a hospital setting can lead to delayed diagnosis, risk of patient harm, and represents inefficiency. Factors influencing this were investigated to identify how timeliness and completeness of test review could be improved through an evidence-based redesign of the use of clinical test review software. METHODS: A cross-section of all abnormal hematology and biochemistry results which were published on a digital test review platform over a 3-year period were investigated. The time it took for clinicians to view these results, and the results that were not viewed within 30 days, were analyzed relative to time of the week, the detailed type of test, and an indicator of patient record data quality. RESULTS: The majority of results were viewed within 90 min, and 93.9% of these results viewed on the digital platform within 30 days. There was significant variation in results review throughout the week, shown to be due to an interplay between technical and clinical workflow factors. Routine results were less likely to be reviewed, as were those with patient record data quality issues. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that test result review would be improved by stream-lining access to the result platform, differentiating between urgent and routine results, improving handover of responsibility for result review, and improving search for temporary patient records. Altering the timing of phlebotomy rounds and a review of the appropriateness of routine test requests at the weekend may also improve result review rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7382616
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73826162020-07-29 Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study Challen, Robert Tsaneva-Atanasova, Krasimira Edwards, Tom Gompels, Luke Dayer, Mark Pitt, Martin Danon, Leon JAMIA Open Research and Applications BACKGROUND: Delay or failure to view test results in a hospital setting can lead to delayed diagnosis, risk of patient harm, and represents inefficiency. Factors influencing this were investigated to identify how timeliness and completeness of test review could be improved through an evidence-based redesign of the use of clinical test review software. METHODS: A cross-section of all abnormal hematology and biochemistry results which were published on a digital test review platform over a 3-year period were investigated. The time it took for clinicians to view these results, and the results that were not viewed within 30 days, were analyzed relative to time of the week, the detailed type of test, and an indicator of patient record data quality. RESULTS: The majority of results were viewed within 90 min, and 93.9% of these results viewed on the digital platform within 30 days. There was significant variation in results review throughout the week, shown to be due to an interplay between technical and clinical workflow factors. Routine results were less likely to be reviewed, as were those with patient record data quality issues. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that test result review would be improved by stream-lining access to the result platform, differentiating between urgent and routine results, improving handover of responsibility for result review, and improving search for temporary patient records. Altering the timing of phlebotomy rounds and a review of the appropriateness of routine test requests at the weekend may also improve result review rates. Oxford University Press 2020-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7382616/ /pubmed/32734170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa003 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research and Applications
Challen, Robert
Tsaneva-Atanasova, Krasimira
Edwards, Tom
Gompels, Luke
Dayer, Mark
Pitt, Martin
Danon, Leon
Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study
title Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study
title_full Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study
title_short Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study
title_sort factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study
topic Research and Applications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32734170
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa003
work_keys_str_mv AT challenrobert factorsinfluencingdigitalreviewofpathologytestresultsinaninpatientsettingacrosssectionalstudy
AT tsanevaatanasovakrasimira factorsinfluencingdigitalreviewofpathologytestresultsinaninpatientsettingacrosssectionalstudy
AT edwardstom factorsinfluencingdigitalreviewofpathologytestresultsinaninpatientsettingacrosssectionalstudy
AT gompelsluke factorsinfluencingdigitalreviewofpathologytestresultsinaninpatientsettingacrosssectionalstudy
AT dayermark factorsinfluencingdigitalreviewofpathologytestresultsinaninpatientsettingacrosssectionalstudy
AT pittmartin factorsinfluencingdigitalreviewofpathologytestresultsinaninpatientsettingacrosssectionalstudy
AT danonleon factorsinfluencingdigitalreviewofpathologytestresultsinaninpatientsettingacrosssectionalstudy