Research Paper: Communication Outcomes of Critical Imaging Results in a Computerized Notification System

OBJECTIVE Communication of abnormal test results in the outpatient setting is prone to error. Using information technology can improve communication and improve patient safety. We standardized processes and procedures in a computerized test result notification system and examined their effectiveness to reduce errors in communication of abnormal imaging results. DESIGN We prospectively analyzed outcomes of computerized notification of abnormal test results (alerts) that providers did not explicitly acknowledge receiving in the electronic medical record of an ambulatory multispecialty clinic. MEASUREMENTS In the study period, 190,799 outpatient visits occurred and 20,680 outpatient imaging tests were performed. We tracked 1,017 transmitted alerts electronically. Using a taxonomy of communication errors, we focused on alerts in which errors in acknowledgment and reception occurred. Unacknowledged alerts were identified through electronic tracking. Among these, we performed chart reviews to determine any evidence of documented response, such as ordering a follow-up test or consultation. If no response was documented, we contacted providers by telephone to determine their awareness of the test results and any follow-up action they had taken. These processes confirmed the presence or absence of alert reception. RESULTS Providers failed to acknowledge receipt of over one-third (368 of 1,017) of transmitted alerts. In 45 of these cases (4% of abnormal results), the imaging study was completely lost to follow-up 4 weeks after the date of study. Overall, 0.2% of outpatient imaging was lost to follow-up. The rate of lost to follow-up imaging was 0.02% per outpatient visit. CONCLUSION Imaging results continue to be lost to follow-up in a computerized test result notification system that alerted physicians through the electronic medical record. Although comparison data from previous studies are limited, the rate of results lost to follow-up appears to be lower than that reported in systems that do not use information technology comparable to what we evaluated.

[1]  John D. Graham,et al.  Kids at Risk: Where American Children Sit in Passenger Vehicles , 1999 .

[2]  Leonard Berlin,et al.  Using an automated coding and review process to communicate critical radiologic findings: one way to skin a cat. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  David W. Bates,et al.  Design and implementation of a comprehensive outpatient Results Manager , 2003, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[4]  Steven Douglas Brantley,et al.  Reporting significant unexpected findings: the emergence of information technology solutions. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[5]  M. Piotrowski,et al.  Illustrating the root-cause-analysis process: creation of a safety net with a semiautomated process for the notification of critical findings in diagnostic imaging. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[6]  David W Bates,et al.  Doing better with critical test results. , 2005, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[7]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Evaluation and outcomes of women with a breast lump and a normal mammogram result , 2005, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[8]  David W Bates,et al.  "I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[9]  K. Freund,et al.  Inadequate follow-up for abnormal Pap smears in an urban population. , 2003, Journal of the National Medical Association.

[10]  A. Wall,et al.  Book ReviewTo Err is Human: building a safer health system Kohn L T Corrigan J M Donaldson M S Washington DC USA: Institute of Medicine/National Academy Press ISBN 0 309 06837 1 $34.95 , 2000 .

[11]  D. Bates,et al.  Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomized controlled trial. , 1999, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[12]  P. Aspden.  Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care , 2004 .

[13]  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.

[14]  Robert B Wallace,et al.  Failure to recognize and act on abnormal test results: the case of screening bone densitometry. , 2005, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[15]  K. Kizer.  The changing face of the Veterans Affairs health care system. , 1997, Minnesota medicine.

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

[17]  Lucian L. Leape,et al.  Editorial: Doing Better with Critical Test Results , 2005 .

[18]  R James Brenner,et al.  To err is human, to correct divine: the emergence of technology-based communication systems. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[19]  Christopher L. Roy,et al.  Patient Safety Concerns Arising from Test Results That Return after Hospital Discharge , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Hardeep Singh,et al.  Identifying diagnostic errors in primary care using an electronic screening algorithm. , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[21]  Elisabeth Burdick,et al.  Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms , 2004, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[22]  L. Kohn,et al.  To Err Is Human : Building a Safer Health System , 2007 .

[23]  David W Bates,et al.  Communicating critical test results: safe practice recommendations. , 2005, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[24]  C. Safran,et al.  Effect of computer-based alerts on the treatment and outcomes of hospitalized patients. , 1994, Archives of internal medicine.

[25]  D. Bates,et al.  Improving safety with information technology. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  Gordon D Schiff,et al.  Introduction: Communicating critical test results. , 2005, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[27]  Leonard Berlin.  Communicating radiology results , 2006, The Lancet.

[28]  R. J. Brenner,et al.  Communication errors in radiology: a liability cost analysis. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[29]  C. Marn,et al.  Efficiency of a semiautomated coding and review process for notification of critical findings in diagnostic imaging. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  Steven H. Woolf,et al.  A String of Mistakes: The Importance of Cascade Analysis in Describing, Counting, and Preventing Medical Errors , 2004, The Annals of Family Medicine.