Peter L Perrotta, Donald S Karcher1. 1. From the Department of Pathology, West Virginia University, Morgantown (Dr Perrotta); and the Department of Pathology, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC (Dr Karcher).
Abstract
CONTEXT: -Laboratories must ensure that the test results and pathology reports they transmit to a patient's electronic health record (EHR) are accurate, complete, and presented in a useable format. OBJECTIVE: -To determine the accuracy, completeness, and formatting of laboratory test results and pathology reports transmitted from the laboratory to the EHR. DESIGN: -Participants from 45 institutions retrospectively reviewed results from 16 different laboratory tests, including clinical and anatomic pathology results, within the EHR used by their providers to view laboratory results. Results were evaluated for accuracy, presence of required elements, and usability. Both normal and abnormal results were reviewed for tests, some of which were performed in-house and others at a reference laboratory. RESULTS: -Overall accuracy for test results transmitted to the EHR was greater than 99.3% (1052 of 1059). There was lower compliance for completeness of test results, with 69.6% (732 of 1051) of the test results containing all essential reporting elements. Institutions that had fewer than half of their orders entered electronically had lower test result completeness rates. The rate of appropriate formatting of results was 90.9% (98 of 1010). CONCLUSIONS: -The great majority of test results are accurately transmitted from the laboratory to the EHR; however, lower percentages are transmitted completely and in a useable format. Laboratories should verify the accuracy, completeness, and format of test results at the time of test implementation, after test changes, and periodically.
CONTEXT: -Laboratories must ensure that the test results and pathology reports they transmit to a patient's electronic health record (EHR) are accurate, complete, and presented in a useable format. OBJECTIVE: -To determine the accuracy, completeness, and formatting of laboratory test results and pathology reports transmitted from the laboratory to the EHR. DESIGN: -Participants from 45 institutions retrospectively reviewed results from 16 different laboratory tests, including clinical and anatomic pathology results, within the EHR used by their providers to view laboratory results. Results were evaluated for accuracy, presence of required elements, and usability. Both normal and abnormal results were reviewed for tests, some of which were performed in-house and others at a reference laboratory. RESULTS: -Overall accuracy for test results transmitted to the EHR was greater than 99.3% (1052 of 1059). There was lower compliance for completeness of test results, with 69.6% (732 of 1051) of the test results containing all essential reporting elements. Institutions that had fewer than half of their orders entered electronically had lower test result completeness rates. The rate of appropriate formatting of results was 90.9% (98 of 1010). CONCLUSIONS: -The great majority of test results are accurately transmitted from the laboratory to the EHR; however, lower percentages are transmitted completely and in a useable format. Laboratories should verify the accuracy, completeness, and format of test results at the time of test implementation, after test changes, and periodically.
Authors: Hardeep Singh; Eric J Thomas; Dean F Sittig; Lindsey Wilson; Donna Espadas; Myrna M Khan; Laura A Petersen Journal: Am J Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Kathryn I Pollak; Catherine Rehder; Adam H Buchanan; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer H Crow; Michael Datto Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Freda Mold; Aziz Sheikh; Azeem Majeed; Jeremy C Wyatt; Tom Quinn; Mary Cavill; Toto Anne Gronlund; Christina Franco; Umesh Chauhan; Hannah Blakey; Neha Kataria; Fiona Barker; Beverley Ellis; Phil Koczan; Theodoros N Arvanitis; Mary McCarthy; Simon Jones; Imran Rafi Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Véronique Tack; Kelly Dufraing; Zandra C Deans; Han J van Krieken; Elisabeth M C Dequeker Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2017-03-26 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Jessica K Dennis; Julia M Sealock; Peter Straub; Younga H Lee; Donald Hucks; Ky'Era Actkins; Annika Faucon; Yen-Chen Anne Feng; Tian Ge; Slavina B Goleva; Maria Niarchou; Kritika Singh; Theodore Morley; Jordan W Smoller; Douglas M Ruderfer; Jonathan D Mosley; Guanhua Chen; Lea K Davis Journal: Genome Med Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: James M Crawford; Khosrow Shotorbani; Gaurav Sharma; Michael Crossey; Tarush Kothari; Thomas S Lorey; Jeffrey W Prichard; Myra Wilkerson; Nancy Fisher Journal: Acad Pathol Date: 2017-04-18