Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Mar;123(3):238-44.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.07.027.

Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain?

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain?

Hardeep Singh et al. Am J Med. 2010 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Follow-up of abnormal outpatient laboratory test results is a major patient safety concern. Electronic medical records can potentially address this concern through automated notification. We examined whether automated notifications of abnormal laboratory results (alerts) in an integrated electronic medical record resulted in timely follow-up actions.

Methods: We studied 4 alerts: hemoglobin A1c > or =15%, positive hepatitis C antibody, prostate-specific antigen > or =15 ng/mL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone > or =15 mIU/L. An alert tracking system determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, provider clicked on and opened the message) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. Within 30 days of result transmission, record review and provider contact determined follow-up actions (eg, patient contact, treatment). Multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors for lack of timely follow-up.

Results: Between May and December 2008, 78,158 tests (hemoglobin A1c, hepatitis C antibody, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and prostate-specific antigen) were performed, of which 1163 (1.48%) were transmitted as alerts; 10.2% of these (119/1163) were unacknowledged. Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%), and was statistically not different for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (6.4% vs 10.1%; P =.13). Of 1163 alerts, 202 (17.4%) arose from unnecessarily ordered (redundant) tests. Alerts for a new versus known diagnosis were more likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 7.35; 95% confidence interval, 4.16-12.97), whereas alerts related to redundant tests were less likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.84).

Conclusions: Safety concerns related to timely patient follow-up remain despite automated notification of non-life-threatening abnormal laboratory results in the outpatient setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Study Flowchart and Outcomes

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Edelman D. Outpatient diagnostic errors: unrecognized hyperglycemia. Eff Clin Pract. 2002;5(1):11–16. - PubMed
    1. Hickner J, Graham DG, Elder NC, Brandt E, Emsermann CB, Dovey S, et al. Testing process errors and their harms and consequences reported from family medicine practices: a study of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(3):194–200. - PubMed
    1. Hickner JM, Fernald DH, Harris DM, Poon EG, Elder NC, Mold JW. Issues and initiatives in the testing process in primary care physician offices. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(2):81–89. - PubMed
    1. Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Sequist TD, Murff HJ, Karson AS, Bates DW. “I wish I had seen this test result earlier!”: Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(20):2223–2228. - PubMed
    1. Schiff GD, Kim S, Krosnjar N, Wisniewski MF, Bult J, Fogelfeld L, et al. Missed Hypothyroidism Diagnosis Uncovered by Linking Laboratory and Pharmacy Data. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(5):574–577. - PubMed

Publication types