Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33283413›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop.

Judith Thomas, Maria R Dahm, Julie Li, Andrew Georgiou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Judith ThomasCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0715-9124
Maria R DahmCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8067-4600
Julie LiCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8881-5962
Andrew GeorgiouCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7619-3668

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMissed test-results and failure to follow-up test-results are major patient safety concerns. Strategies to improve test-results management have predominantly focused on clinician-based interventions, with patients principally involved in studies of test-result communication preferences, the impact of patient portals or experiences with reporting processes in primary care.

objectiveTo identify consumer perspectives and experiences of the challenges they have faced with test-results management, through consumer participation in qualitative data analysis. DESIGN AND

participantsVolunteers (n = 10) were recruited to participate in a health consumer reference group workshop on test-results management. Prior to the workshop, consumers selected topics for discussion using a preference poll. During the workshop, consumers participated in qualitative data analysis of de-identified excerpts of previously collected interview data discussing hospital test-results management. Researchers (n = 5) guided consumers through the analytical process and discussion of themes. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis.

resultsConsumer-selected topics for discussion were 'Transitions of Care' and 'Access'. Consumer data analysis prompted broader discussion including lived experiences. Following the workshop, a second level of content analysis pinpointed issues with implications for patient safety highlighting that consumers were astutely aware of macrolevel 'Systems Factors' relating to 'Emergency Departments' and the health system, as well as microlevel 'Patient Factors' (eg patient preferences and circumstances) which impact a patient's understanding during the 'Communication' (clinician to patient/between clinicians) of test-results 'Information' (or lack thereof).

conclusionsConsumers identified the challenges patients experience with test-results management, and our findings highlight areas for potential improvement in patient safety. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Ten health consumer volunteers actively participated in the test-results management data analysis workshop conducted in this study. Two health consumers also volunteered to read and comment on the draft manuscript.

Indexed as

CommunicationCommunity ParticipationFollow-Up StudiesHospitalsHumansPatient Safetycommunicationconsumer participationdiagnostic errorpatient involvementpatient safetytest-result follow-up

Identifiers

PMID33283413
PMCPMC8077113

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.