Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChallen, R
dc.contributor.authorTsaneva-Atanasova, K
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, T
dc.contributor.authorGompels, L
dc.contributor.authorDayer, M
dc.contributor.authorPitt, M
dc.contributor.authorDanon, L
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-06T10:03:03Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-17
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Delay 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. METHODS: A cross section of all abnormal haematology and biochemistry results which were published on a digital test review platform over a three 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 analysed relative to time of the week, the detailed type of test, and an indicator of patient record data quality. RESULTS: The majority of results were viewed within 90 minutes, 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 . CONCLUSION: The 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.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNHS Englanden_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipAlan Turing Instituteen_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 17 March 2020.en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa003
dc.identifier.grantnumberEP/N014391/1en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberEP/N510129/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/40755
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherOxford University Press (OUP)en_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2020. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
dc.subjecttest result follow-upen_GB
dc.subjectquality improvementen_GB
dc.subjectclinical workflowen_GB
dc.subjectdata qualityen_GB
dc.subjectaboratory informaticsen_GB
dc.titleFactors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional studyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-02-06T10:03:03Z
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Oxford University Press via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.descriptionAvailability of data and material: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the remote possibility of targeted patient re-identification through a linkage attack. Limited data may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and review by the information governance and ethics teams.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2574-2531
dc.identifier.journalJAMIA Openen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-02-05
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-02-05
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-02-05T20:54:51Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2020-03-31T16:00:40Z
refterms.panelBen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record