BACKGROUND: Follow-up of abnormal outpatient laboratory test results is a major patient safety concern. Electronic medical records can potentially address this concern through automated notification. We examined whether automated notifications of abnormal laboratory results (alerts) in an integrated electronic medical record resulted in timely follow-up actions. METHODS: We studied 4 alerts: hemoglobin A1c > or =15%, positive hepatitis C antibody, prostate-specific antigen > or =15 ng/mL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone > or =15 mIU/L. An alert tracking system determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, provider clicked on and opened the message) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. Within 30 days of result transmission, record review and provider contact determined follow-up actions (eg, patient contact, treatment). Multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors for lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Between May and December 2008, 78,158 tests (hemoglobin A1c, hepatitis C antibody, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and prostate-specific antigen) were performed, of which 1163 (1.48%) were transmitted as alerts; 10.2% of these (119/1163) were unacknowledged. Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%), and was statistically not different for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (6.4% vs 10.1%; P =.13). Of 1163 alerts, 202 (17.4%) arose from unnecessarily ordered (redundant) tests. Alerts for a new versus known diagnosis were more likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 7.35; 95% confidence interval, 4.16-12.97), whereas alerts related to redundant tests were less likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Safety concerns related to timely patient follow-up remain despite automated notification of non-life-threatening abnormal laboratory results in the outpatient setting. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Follow-up of abnormal outpatient laboratory test results is a major patient safety concern. Electronic medical records can potentially address this concern through automated notification. We examined whether automated notifications of abnormal laboratory results (alerts) in an integrated electronic medical record resulted in timely follow-up actions. METHODS: We studied 4 alerts: hemoglobin A1c > or =15%, positive hepatitis C antibody, prostate-specific antigen > or =15 ng/mL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone > or =15 mIU/L. An alert tracking system determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, provider clicked on and opened the message) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. Within 30 days of result transmission, record review and provider contact determined follow-up actions (eg, patient contact, treatment). Multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors for lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Between May and December 2008, 78,158 tests (hemoglobin A1c, hepatitis C antibody, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and prostate-specific antigen) were performed, of which 1163 (1.48%) were transmitted as alerts; 10.2% of these (119/1163) were unacknowledged. Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%), and was statistically not different for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (6.4% vs 10.1%; P =.13). Of 1163 alerts, 202 (17.4%) arose from unnecessarily ordered (redundant) tests. Alerts for a new versus known diagnosis were more likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 7.35; 95% confidence interval, 4.16-12.97), whereas alerts related to redundant tests were less likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Safety concerns related to timely patient follow-up remain despite automated notification of non-life-threatening abnormal laboratory results in the outpatient setting. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: D W Bates; G J Kuperman; E Rittenberg; J M Teich; J Fiskio; N Ma'luf; A Onderdonk; D Wybenga; J Winkelman; T A Brennan; A L Komaroff; M Tanasijevic Journal: Am J Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Samuel J Wang; Blackford Middleton; Lisa A Prosser; Christiana G Bardon; Cynthia D Spurr; Patricia J Carchidi; Anne F Kittler; Robert C Goldszer; David G Fairchild; Andrew J Sussman; Gilad J Kuperman; David W Bates Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Eric J Thomas; Shrinidi Mani; Dean Sittig; Harvinder Arora; Donna Espadas; Myrna M Khan; Laura A Petersen Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-09-28
Authors: Eric G Poon; Jennifer S Haas; Ann Louise Puopolo; Tejal K Gandhi; Elisabeth Burdick; David W Bates; Troyen A Brennan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Adol Esquivel; Dean F Sittig; Daniel Murphy; Himabindu Kadiyala; Rachel Schiesser; Donna Espadas; Laura A Petersen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shailaja Menon; Daniel R Murphy; Hardeep Singh; Ashley N D Meyer; Dean F Sittig Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Dean F Sittig; Adam Wright; Enrico Coiera; Farah Magrabi; Raj Ratwani; David W Bates; Hardeep Singh Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Bailey M Pesterev; Katyuska Eibensteiner; Lisa P Newmark; Lipika Samal; Jeffrey M Rothschild Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sarah L Cutrona; Hassan Fouayzi; Laura Burns; Rajani S Sadasivam; Kathleen M Mazor; Jerry H Gurwitz; Lawrence Garber; Devi Sundaresan; Thomas K Houston; Terry S Field Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Douglas S Bell; Laral Cima; Danielle S Seiden; Terry T Nakazono; Marcia S Alcouloumre; William E Cunningham Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Lindsey Wilson; Laura A Petersen; Mona K Sawhney; Brian Reis; Donna Espadas; Dean F Sittig Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 2.796