dc.contributor.author | Challen, R | |
dc.contributor.author | Tsaneva-Atanasova, K | |
dc.contributor.author | Edwards, T | |
dc.contributor.author | Gompels, L | |
dc.contributor.author | Dayer, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Pitt, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Danon, L | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-02-06T10:03:03Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-03-17 | |
dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: 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.sponsorship | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | NHS England | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | Alan Turing Institute | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Published online 17 March 2020. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa003 | |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | EP/N014391/1 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | EP/N510129/1 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/40755 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Oxford 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.subject | test result follow-up | en_GB |
dc.subject | quality improvement | en_GB |
dc.subject | clinical workflow | en_GB |
dc.subject | data quality | en_GB |
dc.subject | aboratory informatics | en_GB |
dc.title | Factors influencing digital review of pathology test results in an inpatient setting: a cross-sectional study | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2020-02-06T10:03:03Z | |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available from Oxford University Press via the DOI in this record. | en_GB |
dc.description | Availability 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.eissn | 2574-2531 | |
dc.identifier.journal | JAMIA Open | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2020-02-05 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2020-02-05 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2020-02-05T20:54:51Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | AM | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2020-03-31T16:00:40Z | |
refterms.panel | B | en_GB |