ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Automating pending labs list into discharge summaries.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPending test results not communicated during the post-acute care transition may pose harm and lead to diagnostic errors in patients. This quality improvement initiative aimed to assess the effectiveness of pending labs communication by automating a list of pending labs into discharge summaries.
methodsA SmartLink was developed in the EpicCare electronic health record that populates a list of pending labs and pathology studies and was added to the standard discharge summary template for hospitalists and resident physicians. A 2-month pre-post review of randomly selected discharge encounters was conducted to assess the frequencies of discharge summaries reporting pending labs, discharges with pending labs, discharges with eventually abnormal pending labs and discharges with results reported in follow-up notes.
resultsOf the 291 pre-intervention encounters reviewed, 130 (44.7%) had one or more labs pending, compared with 115 (40.6%) of 283 post-intervention encounters. 35 (26.9%) of the pre-intervention discharge summaries mentioned all pending labs, compared with 104 (90.4%) post-intervention, p value <0.01. There was no difference in the frequency of discharge encounters with results reported in follow-up notes; however, a trend towards significance was observed for those with abnormal results. DISCUSSION: Implementing an automated link that pulls pending studies into discharge summary templates drastically improved documentation of pending labs. However, given the complexity of post-acute care transitions, more work is needed to ensure receipt and follow-up of this crucial communication.
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.