ArticleBMJ quality & safety2015
Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice.
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Lithium Point-of-Care Testing to Improve Adherence to Monitoring Guidelines and Quality of Maintenance Therapy: Protocol for a Randomised Feasibility Trial.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Scale-up of a chronic care model-based programme for type 2 diabetes in Belgium: a mixed-methods 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
- Article
- Assessment of Health Information Technology-Related Outpatient Diagnostic Delays in the US Veterans Affairs Health Care System: A Qualitative Study of Aggregated Root Cause Analysis Data.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Imaging activity possibly signalling missed diagnostic opportunities in bladder and kidney cancer: A longitudinal data-linkage study using primary care electronic health records.Cancer epidemiology · 2020Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Follow Up of Incidental High-Risk Pulmonary Nodules on Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography at Care Transitions.Journal of hospital medicine · 2019Article
- Test Result Management Practices of Canadian Internal Medicine Physicians and Trainees.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- 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
- Influences on the adoption of patient safety innovation in primary care: a qualitative exploration of staff perspectives.BMC family practice · 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
- Leaving patients to their own devices? Smart technology, safety and therapeutic relationships.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Content analysis of 50 clinical negligence claims involving test results management systems in general practice.BMJ open quality · 2018Article
- The future role of receptionists in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- Exploring the clinically orientated roles of the general practice receptionist: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.