Literature DB >> 19886088

Patient preferences for and satisfaction with methods of communicating test results in a primary care practice.

Surbhi Leekha1, Kris G Thomas, Rajeev Chaudhry, Matthew R Thomas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Appropriate and timely communication of test results is an important element of high-quality health care. Patients' preferences regarding and satisfaction with test result notification methods in a primary care practice were evaluated.
METHODS: Some 1,458 consecutive patients were surveyed for whom routine blood tests were performed in the primary care internal medicine division at the Mayo Clinic Rochester (Minnesota) between January and March 2006.
RESULTS: Among 888 respondents, test result notification occurred by telephone call (43%), return visit (35%), letter (3%), e-mail (0.1%), or a combination of methods (19%). Most (60%) telephone calls were handled by nurses. Patient preferences for notification method were telephone call (55%), return visit (20%), letter (19%), e-mail (5%), and automated answering mechanism (1%). Among patients reporting preference for telephone call, 67% wanted a call from a physician or nurse practitioner. Overall, 44% of patients received results by their preferred method; patients who did not were more likely to be dissatisfied with the communication method than those who did (10% vs. 5%, p = 0.01). A majority of patients were at least somewhat anxious to learn their test results, and patients greatly valued timeliness in test-result notification. DISCUSSION: The results describe primary care patients preferences for communication from their providers. Disparities exist between current practice and patient preferences in this important care delivery process. A telephone call from a physician or nurse practitioner was used to deliver test results for fewer than half of the patients who preferred to receive their results by this method. Future work should explore reimbursement of patient-preferred options and assess ways to improve resource-conscious test result communication methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19886088     DOI: 10.1016/s1553-7250(09)35068-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf        ISSN: 1553-7250


  11 in total

1.  What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients' reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Jack A Clark
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Patient Preferences for Test Result Notification.

Authors:  Samuel K Shultz; Robert Wu; John J Matelski; Xin Lu; Peter Cram
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  System-related interventions to reduce diagnostic errors: a narrative review.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Mark L Graber; Stephanie M Kissam; Asta V Sorensen; Nancy F Lenfestey; Elizabeth M Tant; Kerm Henriksen; Kenneth A LaBresh
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 7.035

Review 4.  The patient-surgeon relationship in the cyber era: communication and information.

Authors:  J Herman Blake; Mary Kay Schwemmer; Robert M Sade
Journal:  Thorac Surg Clin       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 1.750

5.  Does pre-ordering tests enhance the value of the periodic examination? Study Design - Process implementation with retrospective chart review.

Authors:  Vicki L Hunt; Rajeev Chaudhry; Robert J Stroebel; Frederick North
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Emergency physicians' views of direct notification of laboratory and radiology results to patients using the Internet: a multisite survey.

Authors:  Joanne Callen; Traber Davis Giardina; Hardeep Singh; Ling Li; Richard Paoloni; Andrew Georgiou; William B Runciman; Johanna I Westbrook
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Communication of Pulmonary Function Test Results: A Survey of Patient's Preferences.

Authors:  Debbie Zagami; Jessica Hockenhull; Alanna Bodger; Krishna Bajee Sriram
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives.

Authors:  Ian J Litchfield; Louise M Bentham; Richard J Lilford; Sheila M Greenfield
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 2.267

9.  Adaption, implementation and evaluation of collaborative service improvements in the testing and result communication process in primary care from patient and staff perspectives: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Ian J Litchfield; Louise M Bentham; Richard J Lilford; Richard J McManus; Ann Hill; Sheila Greenfield
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 10.  Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.

Authors:  Sian Williamson; Jacoby Patterson; Rebecca Crosby; Rebecca Johnson; Harbinder Sandhu; Samantha Johnson; Jacquie Jenkins; Margaret Casey; Olive Kearins; Sian Taylor-Phillips
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2018-12-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.