Resource Library

One aspect of controlling information overload is planning for the amount of time it will take to follow up on results when a test is ordered. Appropriate follow-up requires the physician to successfully complete numerous steps (e.g., review the result, communicate it to the patient, determine a treatment plan, discuss the plan with the patient, and then facilitate the treatment plan, if necessary). Any failed step during this process can result in patient injury.

Delays in staff processing of critical and significantly abnormal results can affect various aspects of a primary care practice. The following case shows how a delay in entering results into the EHR coupled with an FP’s failure to carefully investigate the patient’s fitness for surgery can result in patient death.

“No Doc” patients (patients without primary care physicians) are often treated in the ED. In the following case, an on-call FP’s agreement to admit the patient to the family practice service, and her partner’s examination of the patient, established their responsibility for following up on results ordered by the ED physician.

Although every step in test result management is important and interrelated, patient notification errors tend to result in more adverse events.¹ Communicating a critical or significantly abnormal test result requires more than simply distributing the result to the patient. The patient should understand the criticality of the result and how to follow up. Communicating the urgency of the circumstances may require an extra effort if the patient has low health literacy or cognition deficits.

In the following case, a primary care practice accepted a trial offer of an electronic test result communication system from its outside laboratory. Because the office had previously relied on faxed reports from the lab, and continued to use that system during the trial, a hybrid system was in place at the time of the adverse event. Research indicates that the use of a hybrid test result system is associated with higher rates of failure to inform patients of abnormal test results compared to using a single system.¹ Consider the ways in which better planning and implementation could have reduced the risk of patient injury in the following case.