Laboratory test ordering and results management systems: a qualitative study of safety risks identified by administrators in general practice

Objective To explore experiences and perceptions of frontline administrators involved in the systems-based management of laboratory test ordering and results handling in general medical practice. Design Qualitative using focus group interviews. Setting West of Scotland general medical practices in three National Health Service (NHS) territorial board areas. Participants Convenience samples of administrators (receptionists, healthcare assistants and phlebotomists). Methods Transcript data were subjected to content analysis. Results A total of 40 administrative staff were recruited. Four key themes emerged: (1) system variations and weaknesses (eg, lack of a tracking process is a known risk that needs to be addressed). (2) Doctor to administrator communication (eg, unclear information can lead to emotional impacts and additional workload). (3) Informing patients of test results (eg, levels of anxiety and uncertainty are experienced by administrators influenced by experience and test result outcome) and (4) patient follow-up and confidentiality (eg, maintaining confidentiality in a busy reception area can be challenging). The key findings were explained in terms of sociotechnical systems theory. Conclusions The study further confirms the safety-related problems associated with results handling systems and adds to our knowledge of the communication and psychosocial issues that can affect the health and well-being of staff and patients alike. However, opportunities exist for practices to identify barriers to safe care, and plan and implement system improvements to accommodate or mitigate the potential for human error in this complex area.

[1]  Jenna Ward,et al.  The unspoken work of general practitioner receptionists: a re-examination of emotion management in primary care. , 2011, Social science & medicine.

[2]  B. Leese,et al.  How do receptionists view continuity of care and access in general practice? , 2007, The European journal of general practice.

[3]  Timothy R. McEwen,et al.  Creating Safety in the Testing Process in Primary Care Offices , 2008 .

[4]  P. Norton,et al.  Safety incidents in family medicine , 2011, BMJ quality & safety.

[5]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[6]  J. Car,et al.  Patient confidentiality and telephone consultations: time for a password , 2006, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[7]  C W Clegg,et al.  Sociotechnical principles for system design. , 2000, Applied ergonomics.

[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]  Albert Cherns,et al.  Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revisted , 1987 .

[10]  M. Kljakovic.  Patients and tests - a study into patient understanding of blood tests ordered by their doctor. , 2012, Australian family physician.

[11]  Jon Adams,et al.  Receptionists' experiences of occupational violence in general practice: a qualitative study. , 2009, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  J W Mold,et al.  Management of laboratory test results in family practice. An OKPRN study. Oklahoma Physicians Resource/Research Network. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[13]  Ben-Tzion Karsh,et al.  Information Chaos in Primary Care: Implications for Physician Performance and Patient Safety , 2011, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

[14]  John Flach,et al.  The management of test results in primary care: does an electronic medical record make a difference? , 2010, Family medicine.

[15]  J. Car,et al.  Protecting patient confidentiality in telephone consultations in general practice. , 2006, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[16]  Taghreed Adam,et al.  Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. , 2009 .

[17]  Identify Innovate Demonstrate Encourage Levels of harm in primary care , 2022 .

[18]  M. Kidd,et al.  The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study: incidence of reported errors in general practice , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[19]  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.

[20]  Albert B. Cherns,et al.  The Principles of Sociotechnical Design , 1976 .

[21]  John McKay,et al.  A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care , 2009, BMC family practice.

[22]  R. Flin.  Rudeness at work , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Maeve O'Beirne,et al.  Errors and adverse events in family medicine: developing and validating a Canadian taxonomy of errors. , 2007, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[24]  J. Sandars,et al.  The frequency and nature of medical error in primary care: understanding the diversity across studies. , 2003, Family practice.

[25]  J. Copeman,et al.  Practice receptionists: poorly trained and taken for granted? , 1988, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[26]  B Downe-Wamboldt,et al.  Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. , 1992, Health care for women international.

[27]  J. Reason,et al.  Combating omission errors through task analysis and good reminders , 2002, Quality & safety in health care.

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

[29]  Sara Bird,et al.  A GP's duty to follow up test results. , 2003, Australian family physician.

[30]  John Hickner,et al.  The Testing Process in Family Medicine: Problems, Solutions and Barriers as Seen by Physicians and Their Staff: A study of the American Academy of Family Physicians' National Research Network , 2006 .

[31]  N. Thomas.  The health foundation. , 2013, Journal of renal care.

[32]  S. Dovey,et al.  Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: a synthesis of the literature. , 2002, The Journal of family practice.

[33]  H. Hesselgreaves,et al.  The Perceptions of Reception Staff in General Practice About the Factors Influencing Specific Medication Errors , 2009, Education for primary care : an official publication of the Association of Course Organisers, National Association of GP Tutors, World Organisation of Family Doctors.

[34]  N. Britten,et al.  What do general practice receptionists think and feel about their work? , 1999, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[35]  Jennifer Holden,et al.  How improving communication between GPs and receptionists can benefit your practice. , 2012, Education for primary care : an official publication of the Association of Course Organisers, National Association of GP Tutors, World Organisation of Family Doctors.

[36]  G E Fryer,et al.  A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice , 2002, Quality & safety in health care.

[37]  D. Chinn,et al.  Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.