Quality and safety in outpatient laboratory testing

Enabling Laboratory Medicine in Primary Care Through IT Systems Use

Important problems remain regarding the efficiency and quality of laboratory testing in primary care. In view of this, a significant function of electronic medical record (EMR) systems is to enable the practice of laboratory medicine by primary care physicians. The present study aims to deepen our understanding of the nature and extent of physicians' use of EMR and other laboratory information exchange systems for patient management and care within the laboratory testing process. We conducted a survey of 684 Canadian family physicians. Results indicate that physicians use 84 percent of the laboratory functionalities available in their EMR system. The two most important impacts are the ability to gain time in the post-analytical phase and to take faster action in this same phase as they follow-up on their patients' test results. Physicians who perceive to benefit most from their EMR use are those who make the most extensive use of their system. Extended use of an EMR system allows primary care physicians to better ascertain and monitor the health status of their patients, verify their diagnosis assumptions, and, if their system includes a clinical decision support module, apply evidence-based practices in laboratory medicine.

Laboratory testing in primary care: A systematic review of health IT impacts

INTRODUCTION

Laboratory testing in primary care is a fundamental process that supports patient management and care. Any breakdown in the process may alter clinical information gathering and decision-making activities and can lead to medical errors and potential adverse outcomes for patients. Various information technologies are being used in primary care with the goal to support the process, maximize patient benefits and reduce medical errors. However, the overall impact of health information technologies on laboratory testing processes has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the positive and negative impacts resulting from the use of health information technology in each phase of the laboratory 'total testing process' in primary care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review. Databases including Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched. Studies eligible for inclusion reported empirical data on: 1) the use of a specific IT system, 2) the impacts of the systems to support the laboratory testing process, and were conducted in 3) primary care settings (including ambulatory care and primary care offices). Our final sample consisted of 22 empirical studies which were mapped to a framework that outlines the phases of the laboratory total testing process, focusing on phases where medical errors may occur.

RESULTS

Health information technology systems support several phases of the laboratory testing process, from ordering the test to following-up with patients. This is a growing field of research with most studies focusing on the use of information technology during the final phases of the laboratory total testing process. The findings were largely positive. Positive impacts included easier access to test results by primary care providers, reduced turnaround times, and increased prescribed tests based on best practice guidelines. Negative impacts were reported in several studies: paper-based processes employed in parallel to the electronic process increased the potential for medical errors due to clinicians' cognitive overload; systems deemed not reliable or user-friendly hampered clinicians' performance; and organizational issues arose when results tracking relied on the prescribers' memory.

DISCUSSION

The potential of health information technology lies not only in the exchange of health information, but also in knowledge sharing among clinicians. This review has underscored the important role played by cognitive factors, which are critical in the clinician's decision-making, the selection of the most appropriate tests, correct interpretation of the results and efficient interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

By providing the right information, at the right time to the right clinician, many IT solutions adequately support the laboratory testing process and help primary care clinicians make better decisions. However, several technological and organizational barriers require more attention to fully support the highly fragmented and error-prone process of laboratory testing.

Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Serious lapses in patient care result from failure to follow-up test results.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review evidence quantifying the extent of failure to follow-up test results and the impact for ambulatory patients.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Inspec and the Cochrane Database were searched for English-language literature from 1995 to 2010.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies which provided documented quantitative evidence of the number of tests not followed up for patients attending ambulatory settings including: outpatient clinics, academic medical or community health centres, or primary care practices.

DATA EXTRACTION

Four reviewers independently screened 768 articles.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and reported wide variation in the extent of tests not followed-up: 6.8% (79/1163) to 62% (125/202) for laboratory tests; 1.0% (4/395) to 35.7% (45/126) for radiology. The impact on patient outcomes included missed cancer diagnoses. Test management practices varied between settings with many individuals involved in the process. There were few guidelines regarding responsibility for patient notification and follow-up. Quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of electronic test management systems was limited although there was a general trend towards improved test follow-up when electronic systems were used.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies used medical record reviews; hence evidence of follow-up action relied upon documentation in the medical record. All studies were conducted in the US so care should be taken in generalising findings to other countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to follow-up test results is an important safety concern which requires urgent attention. Solutions should be multifaceted and include: policies relating to responsibility, timing and process of notification; integrated information and communication technologies facilitating communication; and consideration of the multidisciplinary nature of the process and the role of the patient. It is essential that evaluations of interventions are undertaken and solutions integrated into the work and context of ambulatory care delivery.

A conceptual framework identifying sources of risk to patient safety in primary care

The potential risks to patient safety in a primary care setting are different than the risks to patient safety in an acute care setting. The main differences arise from the organisational structures of primary care delivery and the greater involvement of patients in their care. To account for these differences, we present the Patient Safety in Primary Care Framework to conceptualise the sources of risk to patient safety.

Exploring the iceberg of errors in laboratory medicine

The last few decades have seen a significant decrease in the rates of analytical errors in clinical laboratories, and currently available evidence demonstrates that the pre- and post-analytical steps of the total testing process (TTP) are more error-prone than the analytical phase. In particular, most errors are identified in pre-pre-analytic and post-post analytic steps outside the walls of the laboratory, and beyond its control. However, in a patient-centered approach to the delivery of health care services, there is the need to investigate any possible defect in the total testing process that may have a negative impact on the patient. In fact, in the interests of patients, any direct or indirect negative consequence related to a laboratory test must be considered, irrespective of which step is involved and whether the error is caused by a laboratory professional (e.g., calibration or testing error) or by a non-laboratory operator (e.g., inappropriate test request, error in patient identification and/or blood collection). Data on diagnostic errors in primary care and in the emergency department setting demonstrate that inappropriate test requesting and incorrect interpretation account for a large percentage of total errors whatever the discipline involved, be it radiology, pathology or laboratory medicine. Patient misidentification and problems in communicating results, which affect the delivery of all diagnostic services, are widely recognized as the main goals for quality improvement. Therefore, some common problems affect diagnostic errors, although specific faults characterising errors in laboratory medicine should lead to preventive and corrective actions if evidence-based quality indicators are developed, implemented and monitored. The lesson we have learned is that each practice must examine its own total testing process to discover its weaknesses and identify appropriate remedies.