Management of test results in family medicine offices.
other · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 19597172.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1370/afm.961 and PMC identifier PMC1743568.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We wanted to explore test results management systems in family medicine offices and to delineate the components of quality in results management. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.