ArticleBMJ open quality2018
Content analysis of 50 clinical negligence claims involving test results management systems in general practice.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Descriptive study of claims in primary care during the year 2022 in a health area of Spain.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 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
- 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
- Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsLaboratory test results management systems are a complex safety issue in primary care settings worldwide. Related failures lead to avoidable patient harm, medicolegal action, patient complaints and additional workload to problem solve identified issues. We aimed to review and learn from 50 clinical negligence cases involving system failures related to the management of test results.
methodsThe Medical Protection Society database was searched and a convenience sample of 50 claims identified from a 3-year period covering 2014-2016. A content analysis of documentation was undertaken to quantify and theme data, aided by a Risk Assessment Matrix and the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework. Quantitative data were subjected to simple descriptive statistical analysis.
results14/50 cases (28%) involved a delay in diagnosis or treatment of a patient with cancer. 15 cases were judged to be 'never events' (30%) and 85 distinct system issues were identified. Just under half of cases involved a failure to notify patients of an abnormal test result (n=24, 48%), while 18 cases (36%) involved a test result not being actioned by a doctor. The most frequently occurring contributory factors (n=30, 60%) were related to local working conditions, for example, unclear professional responsibilities with regards to test result review or follow-up or lack of patient care continuity.
conclusionThis small study highlights why test result management systems fail and contribute to future litigation, providing new insights in this area. Most claims involved avoidable harm to patients and preventable organisational risks. The findings point to the inadequate design of practice systems and the need for proactive strategies to improve the management of test results in order to reduce patient harm.
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.