Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30555934›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2018

Content analysis of 50 clinical negligence claims involving test results management systems in general practice.

Diane Baylis, Julie Price, Paul Bowie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. '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
  5. 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 · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Diane BaylisMedical Protection Society Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Julie PriceMedical Protection Society Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Paul BowieInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical negligencegeneral practicepatient safetyprimary caretest results

Identifiers

PMID30555934
PMCPMC6267325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.