Literature DB >> 19233055

Provider management of and satisfaction with laboratory testing in the nursing home setting: results of a national internet-based survey.

Brian H Shirts1, Subashan Perera, Joseph T Hanlon, Yazan F Roumani, Stephanie A Studenski, David A Nace, Michael J Becich, Steven M Handler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the management of and satisfaction with laboratory testing, and desirability of laboratory health information technology in the nursing home setting.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using an Internet-based survey. PARTICIPANTS AND
SETTING: National sample of 426 nurse practitioners and 308 physicians who practice in the nursing home setting. MEASUREMENTS: Systems and processes available for ordering and reviewing laboratory tests, laboratory test result management satisfaction, self-reported delays in laboratory test result review, and desirability of computerized laboratory test result management features in the nursing home setting.
RESULTS: A total of 96 participants (48 physicians and 48 nurse practitioners) completed the survey, for an overall response rate of 13.1% (96/734). Of the survey participants, 77.1% had worked in the nursing home setting for more than 5 years. Over half of clinicians (52.1%) reported 3 or more recent delays in receiving laboratory test results. Only 43.8% were satisfied with their laboratory test results management. Satisfaction was associated with keeping a list of laboratory orders and availability of computerized laboratory test order entry. In the nursing home, 35.4% of participants reported the ability to electronically review laboratory test results, 12.5% and 10.4% respectively had computerized ordering of chemistry/hematology and microbiology/pathology tests. The following 3 features were rated most desirable in a computerized laboratory test result management system: showing abnormal results first, warning if a test result was missed, and allowing electronic acknowledgment of test results.
CONCLUSION: Delays in receiving laboratory test results and dissatisfaction with the management of laboratory test result information are commonly reported among physicians and nurse practitioners working in nursing homes. Test result management satisfaction was associated with computerized order entry and keeping track of ordered laboratory tests, suggesting that implementation of certain health information technology could potentially improve quality of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19233055      PMCID: PMC2846624          DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2008.08.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc        ISSN: 1525-8610            Impact factor:   4.669


  30 in total

1.  Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management.

Authors:  I R Edwards; J K Aronson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-10-07       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Risk factors for adverse drug events among nursing home residents.

Authors:  T S Field; J H Gurwitz; J Avorn; D McCormick; S Jain; M Eckler; M Benser; D W Bates
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-07-09

Review 3.  Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review.

Authors:  Phil Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike Clarke; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Sarah Pratap; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-05-18

4.  Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in nursing homes.

Authors:  J H Gurwitz; T S Field; J Avorn; D McCormick; S Jain; M Eckler; M Benser; A C Edmondson; D W Bates
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2000-08-01       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Notifying emergency department patients of negative test results: pitfalls of passive communication.

Authors:  Ron Keren; Sharon Muret-Wagstaff; Donald A Goldmann; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Pediatr Emerg Care       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.454

6.  Primary care physician attitudes concerning follow-up of abnormal test results and ambulatory decision support systems.

Authors:  H J Murff; T K Gandhi; A K Karson; E A Mort; E G Poon; S J Wang; D G Fairchild; D W Bates
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.046

7.  Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors.

Authors:  D W Bates; L L Leape; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; J M Teich; E Burdick; M Hickey; S Kleefield; B Shea; M Vander Vliet; D L Seger
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-10-21       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Patient safety in the ambulatory setting. A clinician-based approach.

Authors:  Margaret L Plews-Ogan; Mohan M Nadkarni; Sue Forren; Darlene Leon; Donna White; Don Marineau; John B Schorling; Joel M Schectman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Patient notification and follow-up of abnormal test results. A physician survey.

Authors:  E A Boohaker; R E Ward; J E Uman; B D McCarthy
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-02-12

10.  Massachusetts emergency medicine closed malpractice claims: 1988-1990.

Authors:  A Karcz; J Holbrook; M C Burke; M J Doyle; M S Erdos; M Friedman; E D Green; R J Iseke; G W Josephson; K Williams
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 5.721

View more
  11 in total

1.  HIV-Related Training and Correlates of Knowledge, HIV Screening and Prescribing of nPEP and PrEP Among Primary Care Providers in Southeast United States, 2017.

Authors:  Kirk D Henny; Christopher C Duke; Angelica Geter; Zaneta Gaul; Chantell Frazier; Jennifer Peterson; Kate Buchacz; Madeline Y Sutton
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2019-11

2.  To Text or Not to Text? That is the Question.

Authors:  Gregory L Alexander; Riley Harrell; Sue Shumate; Mason Rothert; Amy Vogelsmeier; Lori Popejoy; Marilyn Rantz
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2021-01-25

3.  Human immunodeficiency virus testing practices among buprenorphine-prescribing physicians.

Authors:  E Jennifer Edelman; An T Dinh; Brent A Moore; Richard S Schottenfeld; David A Fiellin; Lynn E Sullivan
Journal:  J Addict Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.702

4.  Surveying multiple health professional team members within institutional settings: an example from the nursing home industry.

Authors:  Melissa A Clark; Anthony Roman; Michelle L Rogers; Denise A Tyler; Vincent Mor
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.651

5.  A randomized trial of the impact of survey design characteristics on response rates among nursing home providers.

Authors:  Melissa Clark; Michelle Rogers; Andrew Foster; Faye Dvorchak; Frances Saadeh; Jessica Weaver; Vincent Mor
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 2.651

6.  Beyond the prescription: medication monitoring and adverse drug events in older adults.

Authors:  Michael A Steinman; Steven M Handler; Jerry H Gurwitz; Gordon D Schiff; Kenneth E Covinsky
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 7.  Advancing health information technology roadmaps in long term care.

Authors:  Gregory L Alexander; Andrew Georgiou; Kevin Doughty; Andrew Hornblow; Anne Livingstone; Michelle Dougherty; Stephen Jacobs; Malcolm J Fisk
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 4.046

8.  Utility of an adverse drug event trigger tool in Veterans Affairs nursing facilities.

Authors:  Zachary A Marcum; Kelly L Arbogast; Michael C Behrens; Michael W Logsdon; Susan Dove Francis; Sean M Jeffery; Sherrie L Aspinall; Joseph T Hanlon; Steven M Handler
Journal:  Consult Pharm       Date:  2013-02

9.  Test Result Management Practices of Canadian Internal Medicine Physicians and Trainees.

Authors:  Thomas Bodley; Janice L Kwan; John Matelski; Patrick J Darragh; Peter Cram
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  HIV prescriptions on the frontlines: Primary care providers' use of antiretrovirals for prevention in the Southeast United States, 2017.

Authors:  Kirk D Henny; Christopher C Duke; Kate Buchacz; John T Brooks; Taraz Samandari; Madeline Y Sutton
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 4.018

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.