ArticleFamily practice2014
Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives.
Article in Family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of the clinically oriented roles of a general practice receptionist: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- De-implementation of routine laboratory testing in a surgical intensive care unit: lessons from a two-phase quality improvement initiative.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Insights From Black Living Kidney Donors: An Interview Study on APOL1 Genetic Testing Experiences.Clinical transplantation · 2026Observational
- Discussing the potential consequences of a diagnostic label before routine non-cancer screening: qualitative study with general practitioners and consumers.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Notification of blood donors who test positive for transfusion-transmissible infections.Vox sanguinis · 2025Article
- Patient safety in actioning and communicating blood test results in primary care: a UK wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT).BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Medical Doctors Approaches and Understanding of Health Literacy: A Systematic Literature Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Greek medical professionals approaches and understanding of health literacy: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Why Test study protocol: a UK-wide audit using the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) to explore the reasons for primary care testing.BJGP open · 2022Article
- 'I guess I'll wait to hear'- communication of blood test results in primary care a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Understanding consumer perceptions of frailty screening to inform knowledge translation and health service improvements.Age and ageing · 2021Article
- Article
- Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.Preventive medicine reports · 2019Review
- The impact of status and social context on health service co-design: an example from a collaborative improvement initiative in UK primary care.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Benefit-risk of Patients' Online Access to their Medical Records: Consensus Exercise of an International Expert Group.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2018Article
- Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Content analysis of 50 clinical negligence claims involving test results management systems in general practice.BMJ open quality · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand how the results of laboratory tests are communicated to patients in primary care and perceptions on how the process may be improved.
designQualitative study employing staff focus groups.
settingFour UK primary care practices.
participantsStaff involved in the communication of test results.
findingsFive 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.
conclusionsCommunication 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.