Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25739322›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015

Emergency physicians' views of direct notification of laboratory and radiology results to patients using the Internet: a multisite survey.

Joanne Callen, Traber Davis Giardina, Hardeep Singh, Ling Li, Richard Paoloni, Andrew Georgiou, William B Runciman, Johanna I Westbrook

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Use and the Users of a Patient Portal: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Joanne CallenCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. joanne.callen@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4271-7558
Macquarie University · AUAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare · AUBaylor College of Medicine · USCenter for Innovation · USConcord Hospital · USUniversity of Adelaide · AU

Funding

Decision Making and Clinical Work of Test Result Follow-up in Health IT SettingsR01HS022087 · AHRQ · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI SINGH, HARDEEP · 2013 to 2016
$2.0M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022087AHRQ HHS R01HS022087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients are increasingly using the Internet to communicate with health care providers and access general and personal health information. Missed test results have been identified as a critical safety issue with studies showing up to 75% of tests for emergency department (ED) patients not being followed-up. One strategy that could reduce the likelihood of important results being missed is for ED patients to have direct access to their test results. This could be achieved electronically using a patient portal tied to the hospital's electronic medical record or accessed from the relevant laboratory information system. Patients have expressed interest in accessing test results directly, but there have been no reported studies on emergency physicians' opinions.

objectiveThe aim was to explore emergency physicians' current practices of test result notification and attitudes to direct patient notification of clinically significant abnormal and normal test results.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was self-administered by senior emergency physicians (site A: n=50; site B: n=39) at 2 large public metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia. Outcome measures included current practices for notification of results (timing, methods, and responsibilities) and concerns with direct notification.

resultsThe response rate was 69% (61/89). More than half of the emergency physicians (54%, 33/61) were uncomfortable with patients receiving direct notification of abnormal test results. A similar proportion (57%, 35/61) was comfortable with direct notification of normal test results. Physicians were more likely to agree with direct notification of normal test results if they believed it would reduce their workload (OR 5.72, 95% CI 1.14-39.76). Main concerns were that patients could be anxious (85%, 52/61), confused (92%, 56/61), and lacking in the necessary expertise to interpret their results (90%, 55/61).

conclusionsAlthough patients' direct access to test results could serve as a safety net reducing the likelihood of abnormal results being missed, emergency physicians' concerns need further exploration: which results are suitable and the timing and method of direct release to patients. Methods of access, including secure Web-based patient portals with drill-down facilities providing test descriptions and result interpretations, or laboratories sending results directly to patients, need evaluation to ensure patient safety is not compromised and the processes fit with ED clinician and laboratory work practices and patient needs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelElectronic Health RecordsEmergency MedicineInternetPatient Access to RecordsAdultAgedAustraliaClinical Laboratory TechniquesCross-Sectional StudiesData CollectionDisclosureHospitals, TeachingHumansMiddle AgedPhysiciansdiagnostic testselectronic health recordsemergency careInternetpatient empowermentpatient safetyradiology

Identifiers

PMID25739322
PMCPMC4376154
OpenAlexW2051804407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.