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
. 2017 Sep;4(3):173-177.
doi: 10.1515/dx-2017-0019. Epub 2017 Jun 15.

Assigning responsibility to close the loop on radiology test results

Affiliations

Assigning responsibility to close the loop on radiology test results

Janice L Kwan et al. Diagnosis (Berl). 2017 Sep.

Abstract

Failure to follow-up on test results represents a serious breakdown point in the diagnostic process which can lead to missed or delayed diagnoses and patient harm. Amidst discussions to ensure fail-safe test result follow-up, an important, yet under-discussed question emerges: how do we determine who is ultimately responsible for initiating follow-up action on the tests that are ordered? This seemingly simple question belies its true complexity. Although many of these complexities are also applicable to other diagnostic specialities, the field of medical imaging provides an ideal context to discuss the challenges of attributing responsibility of test result follow-up. In this review, we summarize several key concepts and challenges in the context of critical results, wet reads, and incidental findings to stimulate further discussion on responsibility issues in radiology. These discussions could help establish reliable closed-loop communication to ensure that every test result is sent, received, acknowledged and acted upon without failure.

Keywords: diagnostic error; health IT; medical imaging; patient safety; quality improvement; radiology; test result management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or other funding agencies. The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Callen J, Georgiou A, Li J, Westbrook JI. The safety implications of missed test results for hospitalised patients: a systematic review. Br Med J Qual Saf. 2011;20:194–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Callen JL, Westbrook JI, Georgiou A, Li J. Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1334–48. - PMC - 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;164:2223–8. - PubMed
    1. Singh H, Spitzmueller C, Petersen NJ, Sawhney MK, Sittig DF. Information overload and missed test results in electronic health record-based settings. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:702–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, Puopolo AL, Yoon C, Brennan TA, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:488–96. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources