ArticleJAMIA open2020
Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study.
Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancies between pathologists and clinicians in interpretation of diagnostic uncertainty in surgical pathology reports.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Endorsing: closing the loop on diagnostic tests in electronic health care records.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Innovations and Opportunities.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelay or failure to view test results in a hospital setting can lead to delayed diagnosis, risk of patient harm, and represents inefficiency. Factors influencing this were investigated to identify how timeliness and completeness of test review could be improved through an evidence-based redesign of the use of clinical test review software.
methodsA cross-section of all abnormal hematology and biochemistry results which were published on a digital test review platform over a 3-year period were investigated. The time it took for clinicians to view these results, and the results that were not viewed within 30 days, were analyzed relative to time of the week, the detailed type of test, and an indicator of patient record data quality.
resultsThe majority of results were viewed within 90 min, and 93.9% of these results viewed on the digital platform within 30 days. There was significant variation in results review throughout the week, shown to be due to an interplay between technical and clinical workflow factors. Routine results were less likely to be reviewed, as were those with patient record data quality issues.
conclusionThe evidence suggests that test result review would be improved by stream-lining access to the result platform, differentiating between urgent and routine results, improving handover of responsibility for result review, and improving search for temporary patient records. Altering the timing of phlebotomy rounds and a review of the appropriateness of routine test requests at the weekend may also improve result review rates.
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.