45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Failure to Follow-Up Test Results for Ambulatory Patients: A Systematic Review

      review-article
      , PhD , , PhD, , PhD, , BAppSc (HIM) (Hons1)
      Journal of General Internal Medicine
      Springer-Verlag
      patient safety, test result follow-up, medical errors, primary care, quality improvement

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          BACKGROUND

          Serious lapses in patient care result from failure to follow-up test results.

          OBJECTIVE

          To systematically review evidence quantifying the extent of failure to follow-up test results and the impact for ambulatory patients.

          DATA SOURCES

          Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Inspec and the Cochrane Database were searched for English-language literature from 1995 to 2010.

          STUDY SELECTION

          Studies which provided documented quantitative evidence of the number of tests not followed up for patients attending ambulatory settings including: outpatient clinics, academic medical or community health centres, or primary care practices.

          DATA EXTRACTION

          Four reviewers independently screened 768 articles.

          RESULTS

          Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and reported wide variation in the extent of tests not followed-up: 6.8% (79/1163) to 62% (125/202) for laboratory tests; 1.0% (4/395) to 35.7% (45/126) for radiology. The impact on patient outcomes included missed cancer diagnoses. Test management practices varied between settings with many individuals involved in the process. There were few guidelines regarding responsibility for patient notification and follow-up. Quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of electronic test management systems was limited although there was a general trend towards improved test follow-up when electronic systems were used.

          LIMITATIONS

          Most studies used medical record reviews; hence evidence of follow-up action relied upon documentation in the medical record. All studies were conducted in the US so care should be taken in generalising findings to other countries.

          CONCLUSIONS

          Failure to follow-up test results is an important safety concern which requires urgent attention. Solutions should be multifaceted and include: policies relating to responsibility, timing and process of notification; integrated information and communication technologies facilitating communication; and consideration of the multidisciplinary nature of the process and the role of the patient. It is essential that evaluations of interventions are undertaken and solutions integrated into the work and context of ambulatory care delivery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

          Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials. To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit. We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes. One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001). Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care.

            Experts consider health information technology key to improving efficiency and quality of health care. To systematically review evidence on the effect of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of health care. The authors systematically searched the English-language literature indexed in MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Abstracts Database. We also added studies identified by experts up to April 2005. Descriptive and comparative studies and systematic reviews of health information technology. Two reviewers independently extracted information on system capabilities, design, effects on quality, system acquisition, implementation context, and costs. 257 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies addressed decision support systems or electronic health records. Approximately 25% of the studies were from 4 academic institutions that implemented internally developed systems; only 9 studies evaluated multifunctional, commercially developed systems. Three major benefits on quality were demonstrated: increased adherence to guideline-based care, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, and decreased medication errors. The primary domain of improvement was preventive health. The major efficiency benefit shown was decreased utilization of care. Data on another efficiency measure, time utilization, were mixed. Empirical cost data were limited. Available quantitative research was limited and was done by a small number of institutions. Systems were heterogeneous and sometimes incompletely described. Available financial and contextual data were limited. Four benchmark institutions have demonstrated the efficacy of health information technologies in improving quality and efficiency. Whether and how other institutions can achieve similar benefits, and at what costs, are unclear.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Error in Medicine

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +61-2-93853867 , +61-2-93858280 , j.callen@unsw.edu.au
                Journal
                J Gen Intern Med
                J Gen Intern Med
                Journal of General Internal Medicine
                Springer-Verlag (New York )
                0884-8734
                1525-1497
                20 December 2011
                20 December 2011
                October 2012
                : 27
                : 10
                : 1334-1348
                Affiliations
                Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia
                Article
                1949
                10.1007/s11606-011-1949-5
                3445672
                22183961
                c4868df8-0d34-4547-836a-fc6c5ea562f9
                © The Author(s) 2011
                History
                : 29 July 2011
                : 28 September 2011
                : 4 November 2011
                Categories
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                © Society of General Internal Medicine 2012

                Internal medicine
                patient safety,test result follow-up,quality improvement,medical errors,primary care

                Comments

                Comment on this article