Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26243888›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2015

Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice.

Ian Litchfield, Louise Bentham, Richard Lilford, Richard J McManus, Ann Hill, Sheila Greenfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. '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 · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Shared decision making about blood tests: secondary analysis of video-recorded primary care consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The future role of receptionists in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ian LitchfieldSchool of Health and Population Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Louise BenthamSchool of Health and Population Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Richard LilfordHealth Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ann HillDepartment of Transformation, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK.
Sheila GreenfieldSchool of Health and Population Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 03/38/01Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health PB-PG-1208-18219Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase and the timely and appropriate communication of results remains essential. However, the testing and result communication process includes a number of participants in a variety of settings and is both complicated to manage and vulnerable to human error. In the UK, guidelines for the process are absent and research in this area is surprisingly scarce; so before we can begin to address potential areas of weakness there is a need to more precisely understand the strengths and weaknesses of current systems used by general practices and testing facilities.

methodsWe conducted a telephone survey of practices across England to determine the methods of managing the testing and result communication process. In order to gain insight into the perspectives from staff at a large hospital laboratory we conducted paired interviews with senior managers, which we used to inform a service blueprint demonstrating the interaction between practices and laboratories and identifying potential sources of delay and failure.

resultsStaff at 80% of practices reported that the default method for communicating normal results required patients to telephone the practice and 40% of practices required that patients also call for abnormal results. Over 80% had no fail-safe system for ensuring that results had been returned to the practice from laboratories; practices would otherwise only be aware that results were missing or delayed when patients requested results. Persistent sources of missing results were identified by laboratory staff and included sample handling, misidentification of samples and the inefficient system for collating and resending misdirected results.

conclusionsThe success of the current system relies on patients both to retrieve results and in so doing alert staff to missing and delayed results. Practices appear slow to adopt available technological solutions despite their potential for reducing the impact of recurring errors in the handling of samples and the reporting of results. Our findings will inform our continuing work with patients and staff to develop, implement and evaluate improvements to existing systems of managing the testing and result communication process.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHematologic TestsLaboratories, HospitalProfessional-Patient RelationsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEnglandGeneral PracticeHealth Care SurveysHealth PersonnelHumansInterprofessional RelationsInterviews as TopicPatientsPhysiciansState MedicineCommunicationPrimary careProcess mappingQuality improvementSurveys

Identifiers

PMID26243888
PMCPMC4680128

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.