Traber Davis Giardina1, Joanne Callen2, Andrew Georgiou2, Johanna I Westbrook2, Anthony Greisinger3, Adol Esquivel4, Samuel N Forjuoh5, Danielle E Parrish6, Hardeep Singh7. 1. Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; Graduate College of Social Work, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: traberd@bcm.edu. 2. Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 3. Kelsey Research Foundation, Houston, TX, USA. 4. CHI St. Luke's Health, Department of Clinical Effectiveness & Performance Measurement, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Family & Community Medicine, Baylor Scott & White Health, College of Medicine, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Temple, TX, USA. 6. Graduate College of Social Work, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine physician perspectives about direct notification of normal and abnormal test results. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at five clinical sites in the US and Australia. The US-based study was conducted via web-based survey of primary care physicians and specialists between July and October 2012. An identical paper-based survey was self-administered between June and September 2012 with specialists in Australia. RESULTS: Of 1417 physicians invited, 315 (22.2%) completed the survey. Two-thirds (65.3%) believed that patients should be directly notified of normal results, but only 21.3% were comfortable with direct notification of clinically significant abnormal results. Physicians were more likely to endorse direct notification of abnormal results if they believed it would reduce the number of patients lost to follow-up (OR=4.98, 95%CI=2.21-1.21) or if they had personally missed an abnormal test result (OR=2.95, 95%CI=1.44-6.02). Conversely, physicians were less likely to endorse if they believed that direct notification interfered with the practice of medicine (OR=0.39, 95%CI=0.20-0.74). CONCLUSION: Physicians we surveyed generally favor direct notification of normal results but appear to have substantial concerns about direct notification of abnormal results. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Widespread use of direct notification should be accompanied by strategies to help patients manage test result abnormalities they receive. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To determine physician perspectives about direct notification of normal and abnormal test results. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at five clinical sites in the US and Australia. The US-based study was conducted via web-based survey of primary care physicians and specialists between July and October 2012. An identical paper-based survey was self-administered between June and September 2012 with specialists in Australia. RESULTS: Of 1417 physicians invited, 315 (22.2%) completed the survey. Two-thirds (65.3%) believed that patients should be directly notified of normal results, but only 21.3% were comfortable with direct notification of clinically significant abnormal results. Physicians were more likely to endorse direct notification of abnormal results if they believed it would reduce the number of patients lost to follow-up (OR=4.98, 95%CI=2.21-1.21) or if they had personally missed an abnormal test result (OR=2.95, 95%CI=1.44-6.02). Conversely, physicians were less likely to endorse if they believed that direct notification interfered with the practice of medicine (OR=0.39, 95%CI=0.20-0.74). CONCLUSION: Physicians we surveyed generally favor direct notification of normal results but appear to have substantial concerns about direct notification of abnormal results. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Widespread use of direct notification should be accompanied by strategies to help patients manage test result abnormalities they receive. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
Direct notification; Patient access to medical information; Test result notification
Authors: Jennifer N Hill; Bridget M Smith; Frances M Weaver; Kim M Nazi; Florian P Thomas; Barry Goldstein; Timothy P Hogan Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 1.985
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
Authors: Maria R Dahm; Andrew Georgiou; Johanna I Westbrook; David Greenfield; Andrea R Horvath; Denis Wakefield; Ling Li; Ken Hillman; Patrick Bolton; Anthony Brown; Graham Jones; Robert Herkes; Robert Lindeman; Michael Legg; Meredith Makeham; Daniel Moses; Dauda Badmus; Craig Campbell; Rae-Anne Hardie; Julie Li; Euan McCaughey; Gorkem Sezgin; Judith Thomas; Nasir Wabe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dorien Lanssens; Thijs Vandenberk; Joy Lodewijckx; Tessa Peeters; Valerie Storms; Inge M Thijs; Lars Grieten; Wilfried Gyselaers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: John Kildea; John Battista; Briana Cabral; Laurie Hendren; David Herrera; Tarek Hijal; Ackeem Joseph Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew Georgiou; Julie Li; Judith Thomas; Maria R Dahm; Johanna I Westbrook Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497