Literature DB >> 20806684

Crossing the finish line: follow-up of abnormal test results in a multisite community health center.

Eric T Chen1, Mickey Eder, Nancy C Elder, John Hickner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal test results is a common safety problem in outpatient practice. However, it is unclear exactly where and how often failures occur in the results management process. Our goal was to determine where breakdowns occur by examining 4 high-risk abnormal test results in a group of 11 clinics of an urban community health center organization.
METHODS: Using a chart audit, we counted failures in the management of abnormal results of 4 tests: Pap smears, mammograms, international normalized ratio (INR), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). We assessed documentation that the result was filed in the chart; the provider signed and responded to the result; the patient was notified of the result; the appropriate follow-up occurred, and it occurred in a timely manner or there was explicit patient refusal of the recommended follow-up.
RESULTS: There were 344 abnormal test results (105 Pap smears, 82 mammograms, 61 INRs, and 96 PSAs). The highest rate of failures in the management process was at follow-up care; 34% of the abnormal results did not have documentation that appropriate follow-up had occurred (11% for mammography, 26% for INR, 45% for Pap smears, and 46% for PSA). All of the earlier steps were performed with far fewer failures. For patients receiving follow-up care, 49% of the time, follow-up care did not occur in a timely manner.
CONCLUSIONS: Most breakdowns in the testing process for these 4 abnormal tests were in the final step, documenting that appropriate follow-up care occurred. Office systems for managing abnormal results reporting and patient follow-up are needed to improve the safety and quality of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20806684     DOI: 10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30658-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc        ISSN: 0027-9684            Impact factor:   1.798


  10 in total

1.  Predictors of adherence to follow-up recommendations after an abnormal Pap smear among underserved inner-city women.

Authors:  Suzanne M Miller; Erin K Tagai; Kuang-Yi Wen; Minsun Lee; Siu-Kuen Azor Hui; Deirdre Kurtz; John Scarpato; Enrique Hernandez
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-01-31

Review 2.  Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joanne L Callen; Johanna I Westbrook; Andrew Georgiou; Julie Li
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Extent of Follow-Up on Abnormal Cancer Screening in Multiple California Public Hospital Systems: A Retrospective Review.

Authors:  Elaine C Khoong; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Lucia Pacca; Dean Schillinger; David Lown; Palav Babaria; Neha Gupta; Rajiv Pramanik; Helen Tran; Tyler Whitezell; Ma Somsouk; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 6.473

4.  Diagnostic resolution of cancer screening abnormalities at community health centers.

Authors:  Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ercilia R Calcano; Cathy D Meade; William J Fulp; Kristen J Wells
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2012-08

5.  A multilevel research perspective on cancer care delivery: the example of follow-up to an abnormal mammogram.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; K Robin Yabroff; Jane Zapka
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Provider Perspectives of the Complexities of Follow-Up of Abnormal Mammographic Findings.

Authors:  Alecia M Fair; Asher E Beckwitt; Debra Wujcik; Consuelo H Wilkins; Ursula Halmon; Anthony Disher; Victoria L Champion
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Using Natural Language Processing to Extract Abnormal Results From Cancer Screening Reports.

Authors:  Carlton R Moore; Ashraf Farrag; Evan Ashkin
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.844

8.  How context affects electronic health record-based test result follow-up: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Authors:  Shailaja Menon; Michael W Smith; Dean F Sittig; Nancy J Petersen; Sylvia J Hysong; Donna Espadas; Varsha Modi; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Protocol for using mixed methods and process improvement methodologies to explore primary care receptionist work.

Authors:  Ian Litchfield; Nicola Gale; Michael Burrows; Sheila Greenfield
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Can process mining automatically describe care pathways of patients with long-term conditions in UK primary care? A study protocol.

Authors:  Ian Litchfield; Ciaron Hoye; David Shukla; Ruth Backman; Alice Turner; Mark Lee; Phil Weber
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.