ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022
'I guess I'll wait to hear'- communication of blood test results in primary care a qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2022. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Implications of the changes to patient online records access in English primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Found poetry: a creative approach to illuminate the findings of qualitative research.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRates of blood testing in primary care are rising. Communicating blood test results generates significant workload for patients, GPs, and practice staff.
aimTo explore GPs' and patients' experience of systems of blood test communication. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative interviews with patients and GPs in UK primary care in both urban and rural practices in the West of England.
methodA total of 28 patients and 19 GPs from six practices were recruited, with a range of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Patients were interviewed at two time points: a) at or soon after their blood test and b) after they had received their test results. The GPs who requested the tests were also interviewed (they could complete a maximum of two interviews about different patients). Eighty qualitative interviews were undertaken; 54 patient interviews and 26 GP interviews.
resultsMethods of test result communication varied between doctors and were based on habits, unwritten heuristics, and personal preferences rather than protocols. Doctors expected patients to know how to access their test results. In contrast, patients were often uncertain and used guesswork to decide when and how to access their tests. Patients and doctors generally assumed that the other party would make contact, with potential implications for patient safety. Text messaging and online methods of communication have benefits, but were perceived by some patients as 'flippant' or 'confusing'. Delays and difficulties obtaining and interpreting test results can lead to anxiety and frustration for patients.
conclusionCurrent systems of test result communication are complex and confusing, and mostly based on habits and routines rather than clear protocols. This has important implications for patient-centred care and patient safety.
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.