ArticleEJIFCC2015
The Impact for Patient Outcomes of Failure to Follow Up on Test Results. How Can We Do Better?
Article in EJIFCC, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Automated Notification on Follow-up of Actionable Tests Pending at Discharge: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Impact of Secondary Prevention on Mortality in the Building Trades National Medical Screening Program: Effectiveness of Occupational High-Risk Management.American journal of industrial medicine · 2026Article
- Critical values notification: A nationwide survey of practices among clinical laboratories across Nigeria.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Endorsing: closing the loop on diagnostic tests in electronic health care records.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Critical Test Result Recall Supporting System (CTR RSS) Improves Follow-Up among Patients in the Community.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Engaging patients and families in pediatric radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2020Review
- Medication Risk Management.Innovations in pharmacy · 2019Article
- Contributing Factors for Pediatric Ambulatory Diagnostic Process Errors: Project RedDE.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Project RedDE: Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed or Delayed Abnormal Laboratory Value Actions.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization-World Alliance for Patient Safety has identified test result management as a priority area. Poor test result follow-up can have major consequences for the quality of care, including missed diagnoses and suboptimal patient outcomes. Over the last three decades there has been considerable growth in the number of requests for pathology and radiology services which has added to the complexity of how patient care is delivered and test results are managed. This can contribute to a lack of clarity about where and with whom responsibility for test follow-up should reside: a problem that is compounded by a lack of clear definitions about what are critical, unexpected or significantly abnormal results. AIM OF THIS PAPER: This paper will present a narrative review highlighting key issues related to the problem of failure to follow up laboratory test results, and outline potential solutions.
conclusionsInformation technology (IT) has the potential to enhance the performance and safety of test result management processes. Effective solutions must engage all stakeholders, including consumers, in arriving at decisions about who needs to receive results, how and when they are communicated, and how they are acknowledged and acted upon and the documentation of these actions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27683480PMC4975222W2557721913What 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.