Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28854919›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Adaption, implementation and evaluation of collaborative service improvements in the testing and result communication process in primary care from patient and staff perspectives: a qualitative study.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Quality improvements of safety-netting guidelines for cancer in UK primary care: insights from a qualitative interview study of GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ian J LitchfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. i.litchfield@bham.ac.uk.
Louise M BenthamInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Richard J LilfordWMS - Population Evidence and Technologies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Richard J McManusNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ann HillHead of Transformation, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK.
Sheila GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing numbers of blood tests are being ordered in primary care settings and the swift and accurate communication of test results is central to providing high quality care. The process of testing and result communication is complex and reliant on the coordinated actions of care providers, external groups in laboratory and hospital settings, and patients. This fragmentation leaves it vulnerable to error and the need to improve an apparently fallible system is apparent. However, primary care is complex and does not necessarily adopt change in a linear and prescribed manner influenced by a range of factors relating to practice staff, patients and organisational factors. To account for these competing perspectives, we worked in conjunction with both staff and patients to develop and implement strategies intended to improve patient satisfaction and increase efficiency of existing processes.

methodsThe study applied the principles of 'experience-based co-design' to identify key areas of weakness and source proposals for change from staff and patients. The study was undertaken within two primary practices situated in South Birmingham (UK) of contrasting size and socio-economic environment. Senior practice staff were involved in the refinement of the interventions for introduction. We conducted focus groups singly constituted of staff and patients at each practice to determine suitability, applicability and desirability alongside the practical implications of their introduction.

resultsAt each practice four of the six proposals for change were implemented these were increased access to phlebotomy, improved receptionist training, proactive communication of results, and increased patient awareness of the tests ordered and the means of their communication. All were received favourably by both patients and staff. The remaining issues around the management of telephone calls and the introduction of electronic alerts for missing results were not addressed due to constraints of time and available resources.

conclusionsApproaches to tackling the same area of weakness differed at practices and was determined by individual staff attitudes and by organisational and patient characteristics. The long-term impact of the changes requires further quantitative evaluation.

Indexed as

CommunicationAttitude of Health PersonnelDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFocus GroupsHumansPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementUnited KingdomClinician-patient communication/relationshipCllaborative/interdisciplinary careHealthcare delivery/health services research

Identifiers

PMID28854919
PMCPMC5577659
OpenAlexW2751791831

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.