Literature DB >> 34741512

Identifying the mechanisms that contribute to safe and effective electronic test result management systems- a multisite qualitative study.

Andrew Georgiou1, Julie Li1, Judith Thomas1, Maria R Dahm1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Suboptimal design of health information technology (IT) systems can lead to the introduction of errors in the diagnostic process. We aimed to identify mechanisms that can affect the safety and effectiveness of these systems in hospital settings thus contributing to the building of an explicit and replicable understanding of the variables that can affect the functioning of IT systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study drew from observations and semistructured interviews from a purposive sample of 46 participants (26 emergency department and 20 laboratory and medical imaging staff) across 3 Australian hospitals. Iterative, inductive coding of the data led to the development of higher-level themes based on relationships between codes.
RESULTS: Two overarching themes emerged: (1) usability and safety of the electronic test result management system; and (2) system redesign considerations about who is meant to follow up, when and how. The usability and safety of digital systems and the way these systems deal with accountability processes are triggered by mechanisms that are contextually dependent. DISCUSSION: Our findings highlighted the multitransactional nature of the test result management process involving numerous healthcare professionals across different settings. This communication requires integration of the systems utilized by different departments and transparency of the test result follow-up process to facilitate clear lines of responsibility and accountability.
CONCLUSION: Identifying mechanisms that shape the functionality and sustainability of electronic result management can offer a valuable appreciation of key elements that need to be accounted for, and the circumstances in which they need to operate effectively.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnostic testing; emergency departments; medical informatics; qualitative studies

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34741512      PMCID: PMC8714281          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocab235

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  32 in total

1.  Can electronic clinical documentation help prevent diagnostic errors?

Authors:  Gordon D Schiff; David W Bates
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The Burden of Inbox Notifications in Commercial Electronic Health Records.

Authors:  Daniel R Murphy; Ashley N D Meyer; Elise Russo; Dean F Sittig; Li Wei; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  The Impact of Automated Notification on Follow-up of Actionable Tests Pending at Discharge: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Anuj K Dalal; Adam Schaffer; Esteban F Gershanik; Ranganath Papanna; Katyuska Eibensteiner; Nyryan V Nolido; Cathy S Yoon; Deborah Williams; Stuart R Lipsitz; Christopher L Roy; Jeffrey L Schnipper
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain?

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

5.  Adequacy of hospital discharge summaries in documenting tests with pending results and outpatient follow-up providers.

Authors:  Martin C Were; Xiaochun Li; Joe Kesterson; Jason Cadwallader; Chite Asirwa; Babar Khan; Marc B Rosenman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-07-03       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Patient groups, clinicians and healthcare professionals agree - all test results need to be seen, understood and followed up.

Authors:  Maria R Dahm; Andrew Georgiou; Robert Herkes; Anthony Brown; Julie Li; Robert Lindeman; Andrea R Horvath; Graham Jones; Michael Legg; Ling Li; David Greenfield; Johanna I Westbrook
Journal:  Diagnosis (Berl)       Date:  2018-11-27

7.  Perceptions of the effect of information and communication technology on the quality of care delivered in emergency departments: a cross-site qualitative study.

Authors:  Joanne Callen; Richard Paoloni; Julie Li; Michael Stewart; Kathryn Gibson; Andrew Georgiou; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Johanna Westbrook
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 5.721

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.  Does health informatics have a replication crisis?

Authors:  Enrico Coiera; Elske Ammenwerth; Andrew Georgiou; Farah Magrabi
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  The impact of health information technology on the management and follow-up of test results - a systematic review.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.