Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives

Objective. To understand how the results of laboratory tests are communicated to patients in primary care and perceptions on how the process may be improved. Design. Qualitative study employing staff focus groups. Setting. Four UK primary care practices. Participants. Staff involved in the communication of test results. Findings. Five main themes emerged from the data: (i) the default method for communicating results differed between practices; (ii) clinical impact of results and patient characteristics such as anxiety level or health literacy influenced methods by which patients received their test result; (iii) which staff member had responsibility for the task was frequently unclear; (iv) barriers to communicating results existed, including there being no system or failsafe in place to determine whether results were returned to a practice or patient; (v) staff envisaged problems with a variety of test result communication methods discussed, including use of modern technologies, such as SMS messaging or online access. Conclusions. Communication of test results is a complex yet core primary care activity necessitating flexibility by both patients and staff. Dealing with the results from increasing numbers of tests is resource intensive and pressure on practice staff can be eased by greater utilization of electronic communication. Current systems appear vulnerable with no routine method of tracing delayed or missing results. Instead, practices only become aware of missing results following queries from patients. The creation of a test communication protocol for dissemination among patients and staff would help ensure both groups are aware of their roles and responsibilities.

[1]  Elizabeth W. Staton,et al.  Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: A report from the ASIPS Collaborative , 2005, BMC family practice.

[2]  J. Hewitt-Taylor,et al.  Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research. , 2001, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[3]  M. Mason Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews , 2010 .

[4]  J. Meza,et al.  Patient preferences for laboratory test results notification. , 2000, The American journal of managed care.

[5]  P. Gill,et al.  Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups , 2008, BDJ.

[6]  Andrew Georgiou,et al.  Failure to Follow-Up Test Results for Ambulatory Patients: A Systematic Review , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[7]  Wanda Pratt,et al.  Patients as actors: The patient's role in detecting, preventing, and recovering from medical errors , 2007, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[8]  E. Murphy,et al.  Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[9]  B. McCarthy,et al.  Patient notification and follow-up of abnormal test results. A physician survey. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[10]  M. Kelly,et al.  Use of laboratory services and communication of results to patients in an urban practice: an audit. , 1988, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[11]  Douglas H. Fernald,et al.  Issues and initiatives in the testing process in primary care physician offices. , 2005, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[12]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix--DySIS, LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and Niris Imaging System: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2013, Health technology assessment.

[13]  Meza Jp,et al.  Patient preferences for laboratory test results notification. , 2000 .

[14]  C. Glenton,et al.  What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[15]  Matthew R. Thomas,et al.  Patient preferences for and satisfaction with methods of communicating test results in a primary care practice. , 2009, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[16]  P. J. Chilton,et al.  Birmingham and Lambeth Liver Evaluation Testing Strategies (BALLETS): a prospective cohort study. , 2013, Health technology assessment.

[17]  S. Dovey,et al.  Testing process errors and their harms and consequences reported from family medicine practices: a study of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[18]  Johanna I. Westbrook,et al.  Research Paper: The Effect of Physicians' Long-term Use of CPOE on Their Test Management Work Practices , 2006, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[19]  Elizabeth Broadbent,et al.  Effect of providing information about normal test results on patients' reassurance: randomised controlled trial , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  Jennie J Gallimore,et al.  Management of Test Results in Family Medicine Offices , 2009, The Annals of Family Medicine.