This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Physician Survey

Emily A. Boohaker, MD; Richard E. Ward, MD, MBA; Jane E. Uman, MPH; Bruce D. McCarthy, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(3):327-331.

Abstract
Objective
To investigate physician practices in the handling of patients' test results from the time the test was ordered until the time any required follow-up was completed.

Methods
Survey of 161 attending physicians and 101 residents in family practice and internal medicine practicing at a large urban teaching hospital and 21 suburban primary care practices in Southeastern Michigan. The survey included questions about physician demographics, and whether physicians have methods for ensuring that (1) the results of all tests ordered are received, (2) all patients are notified of results, (3) all patient notification is documented, and (4) all required follow-up is done. Physicians were also asked to self-rate the reliability of their methods and the importance of various steps in the handling of patients' test results.

Results
The response rate was 79% for both attending physicians and residents. Approximately 17% to 32% of physicians reported having no reliable method to make sure that the results of all tests ordered are received. One third of physicians do not always notify patients of abnormal results. The most common reasons reported for not notifying patients were that the results were trivial and that the patient was expected to return to the clinic soon. Residents were significantly less likely to document notifying patients of abnormal results (P<.001). Only 23% of physicians reported having a reliable method for identifying patients overdue for follow-up.

Conclusions
Lack of methods to ensure that the results of tests ordered were received, dependence on follow-up visits to inform patients of results, and lack of documentation were relatively common among physicians surveyed. These could lead to an increased risk of malpractice litigation and suboptimal patient care.

(Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:327-331)

Author Affiliations
From the Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital (Drs Boohaker and McCarthy), and the Center for Clinical Effectiveness (Drs Ward and McCarthy), and the Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (Ms Uman), Detroit, Mich. Dr Boohaker is now with the Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Patient Preferences and Physician Practices for Laboratory Test Results Notification
Grimes et al.
J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22:670-676.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Management of Test Results in Family Medicine Offices
Elder et al.
Ann Fam Med 2009;7:343-351.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Frequency of Failure to Inform Patients of Clinically Significant Outpatient Test Results
Casalino et al.
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1123-1129.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The unbearable lightness of diagnostic testing: time to contain inappropriate test ordering
Schattner
Postgrad. Med. J. 2008;84:618-621.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Randomized Trial of Electronic Clinical Reminders to Improve Medication Laboratory Monitoring
Matheny et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:424-429.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Computerized Alerts Improve Outpatient Laboratory Monitoring of Transplant Patients
Staes et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:324-332.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Factors Associated with Time to Follow-up of Severe Hyperkalemia in the Ambulatory Setting
Moore et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 2007;22:428-437.
ABSTRACT  

Impact of an Automated Test Results Management System on Patients' Satisfaction About Test Result Communication
Matheny et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2233-2239.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Errors in Cancer Diagnosis: Current Understanding and Future Directions
Singh et al.
JCO 2007;25:5009-5018.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Quality and Safety of Ambulatory Medical Care: Current and Future Prospects
Moskowitz and Nash
American Journal of Medical Quality 2007;22:274-288.
 

Communication Outcomes of Critical Imaging Results in a Computerized Notification System
Singh et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:459-466.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Follow-up of Outpatient Test Results: A Survey of House-Staff Practices and Perceptions
Lin et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 2006;21:178-184.
ABSTRACT  

Fumbled Handoffs: One Dropped Ball after Another
Gandhi
ANN INTERN MED 2005;142:352-358.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

"I Wish I Had Seen This Test Result Earlier!": Dissatisfaction With Test Result Management Systems in Primary Care
Poon et al.
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2223-2228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Factors Are Associated with Diagnostic Follow-Up after Abnormal Mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey
Yabroff et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:723-732.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is the Promise of Cancer-Screening Programs Being Compromised? Quality of Follow-Up Care after Abnormal Screening Results
Yabroff et al.
Med Care Res Rev 2003;60:294-331.
ABSTRACT