Patient Notification and Follow-up of Abnormal Test Results
- 12 February 1996
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of internal medicine (1960)
- Vol. 156 (3) , 327-331
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1996.00440030133016
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)This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Loss PreventionPublished by Bloomsbury Academic ,2009
- Computerized medical records and preventive health care: Success depends on many factorsThe American Journal of Medicine, 1993
- Implementing Clinical Guidelines: A Quality Management Approach to Reminder SystemsQRB - Quality Review Bulletin, 1992
- Promoting cancer prevention activities by primary care physicians. Results of a randomized, controlled trialPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1991
- Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases.Radiology, 1991
- Medicolegal aspects of breast imaging: variable standards of care relating to different types of practice.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1991
- Preliminary results of a district call scheme for cervical screening organised in general practice.BMJ, 1988
- Medical malpractice in diagnostic radiology: claims, compensation, and patient injury.Radiology, 1987
- Malpractice and radiologists, update 1986: an 11.5-year perspectiveAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 1986
- Malpractice and radiologistsAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 1980