ArticleJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety
Utility of an Electronic Health Record Report to Identify Patients with Delays in Testing for Poorly Controlled Diabetes.
Article in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is essential for patients with poorly controlled diabetes. However, delays in HbA1c testing are common, and incomplete electronic health record (EHR) reports hinder identification of patients who are overdue. This study sought to quantify how often an EHR report correctly identifies patients with HbA1c testing delays and to describe potential contributing factors.
methodsUsing an EHR report, the researchers identified adult patients who had an HbA1c > 9.0% between October 2017 and March 2018 and a suspected delay (for example, another HbA1c had not resulted within six months). A retrospective chart review of 200 randomly selected records was performed to confirm delays in testing. Secondary measures were collected from 93 charts to evaluate associated factors.
resultsA total of 685 patients with suspected delays were identified. On chart review (N = 200), 82.0% were confirmed. Nine percent of patients had a timely repeat result, but the result was not in a discrete field within the EHR. Another 8.5% were never expected to return. Among a subset of confirmed delays, patients often received lifestyle counseling, but less than half had documented discussions about repeat glycemic testing. Also, 74.2% had a timely follow-up appointment scheduled but the majority (85.5%) were missed.
conclusionMost suspected delays in HbA1c testing were confirmed; however, a substantial minority were misclassified due to missing data or follow-up care outside the health system. Current solutions to improve data quality for HbA1c are labor intensive and highlight the need for better integration of health care data. Missed appointments were commonly noted among patients with delays in care and are a potential target for improvement.
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.