Understanding the management of electronic test result notifications in the outpatient setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Notifying clinicians about abnormal test results through electronic health record (EHR) -based "alert" notifications may not always lead to timely follow-up of patients. We sought to understand barriers, facilitators, and potential interventions for safe and effective management of abnormal test result delivery via electronic alerts.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a qualitative study consisting of six 6-8 member focus groups (N = 44) at two large, geographically dispersed Veterans Affairs facilities. Participants included full-time primary care providers, and personnel representing diagnostic services (radiology, laboratory) and information technology. We asked participants to discuss barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improving timely management and follow-up of abnormal test result notifications and encouraged them to consider technological issues, as well as broader, human-factor-related aspects of EHR use such as organizational, personnel, and workflow.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Providers reported receiving a large number of alerts containing information unrelated to abnormal test results, many of which were believed to be unnecessary. Some providers also reported lacking proficiency in use of certain EHR features that would enable them to manage alerts more efficiently. Suggestions for improvement included improving display and tracking processes for critical alerts in the EHR, redesigning clinical workflow, and streamlining policies and procedures related to test result notification.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Providers perceive several challenges for fail-safe electronic communication and tracking of abnormal test results. A multi-dimensional approach that addresses technology as well as the many non-technological factors we elicited is essential to design interventions to reduce missed test results in EHRs.</p

A Study of Critical Value Notification in the Outpatient Setting: The Relationship Between Physician Response and Patient Outcomes

Critical values are laboratory values that represent a life-threatening condition for which there is a treatment available. Laboratories make immediate notifications to ordering providers when critical values are identified so that they may quickly act to initiate a treatment for their patient. The majority of laboratories apply the inpatient critical value list to the outpatient setting, although there are many differences between an acutely ill inpatient population and an ambulatory outpatient population. The goal of this study was to determine if providers responded to the critical values in the outpatient setting and to determine if there was a difference in outcome indicators when providers responded to notifications and when they did not respond to notifications. Data for 673 critical value notifications for PT/INR, Digoxin, and Glucose results were collected from Riverside Health System’s five laboratories. Analysis suggested that the inpatient critical value lists and thresholds may not be appropriate to apply to the outpatient setting. In this study of 637 critical value notifications, providers chose not to respond to 25.7% of critical value notifications. Providers were more likely to respond to PT/INR and Digoxin critical value notifications that glucose critical value notifications. None of the cases for either of the three tests that went without a provider response resulted in death or serious harm to a patient, indicating that the critical value thresholds do not meet the definition of a critical value in the outpatient setting. In the future, laboratories should explore the utilization of a different critical value list and thresholds for the outpatient setting based upon patient outcomes

Regional data exchange to improve care for veterans after non-VA hospitalization: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Coordination of care, especially after a patient experiences an acute care event, is a challenge for many health systems. Event notification is a form of health information exchange (HIE) which has the potential to support care coordination by alerting primary care providers when a patient experiences an acute care event. While promising, there exists little evidence on the impact of event notification in support of reengagement into primary care. The objectives of this study are to 1) examine the effectiveness of event notification on health outcomes for older adults who experience acute care events, and 2) compare approaches to how providers respond to event notifications. METHODS: In a cluster randomized trial conducted across two medical centers within the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system, we plan to enroll older patients (≥ 65 years of age) who utilize both VHA and non-VHA providers. Patients will be enrolled into one of three arms: 1) usual care; 2) event notifications only; or 3) event notifications plus a care transitions intervention. In the event notification arms, following a non-VHA acute care encounter, an HIE-based intervention will send an event notification to VHA providers. Patients in the event notification plus care transitions arm will also receive 30 days of care transition support from a social worker. The primary outcome measure is 90-day readmission rate. Secondary outcomes will be high risk medication discrepancies as well as care transitions processes within the VHA health system. Qualitative assessments of the intervention will inform VHA system-wide implementation. DISCUSSION: While HIE has been evaluated in other contexts, little evidence exists on HIE-enabled event notification interventions. Furthermore, this trial offers the opportunity to examine the use of event notifications that trigger a care transitions intervention to further support coordination of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02689076. "Regional Data Exchange to Improve Care for Veterans After Non-VA Hospitalization." Registered 23 February 2016

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

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 \u3e or =15%, positive hepatitis C antibody, prostate-specific antigen \u3e or =15 ng/mL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone \u3e 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

Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential?

BACKGROUND: Given the fragmentation of outpatient care, timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging results remains a challenge. We hypothesized that an electronic medical record (EMR) that facilitates the transmission and availability of critical imaging results through either automated notification (alerting) or direct access to the primary report would eliminate this problem. METHODS: We studied critical imaging alert notifications in the outpatient setting of a tertiary care Department of Veterans Affairs facility from November 2007 to June 2008. Tracking software determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, health care practitioner/provider [HCP] opened the message for viewing) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. We reviewed medical records and contacted HCPs to determine timely follow-up actions (eg, ordering a follow-up test or consultation) within 4 weeks of transmission. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering effect by HCPs analyzed predictors for 2 outcomes: lack of acknowledgment and lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Of 123 638 studies (including radiographs, computed tomographic scans, ultrasonograms, magnetic resonance images, and mammograms), 1196 images (0.97%) generated alerts; 217 (18.1%) of these were unacknowledged. Alerts had a higher risk of being unacknowledged when the ordering HCPs were trainees (odds ratio [OR], 5.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.86-10.89) and when dual-alert (\u3e1 HCP alerted) as opposed to single-alert communication was used (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.22-3.36). Timely follow-up was lacking in 92 (7.7% of all alerts) and was similar for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (7.3% vs 9.7%; P = .22). Risk for lack of timely follow-up was higher with dual-alert communication (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.06-3.48) but lower when additional verbal communication was used by the radiologist (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.38). Nearly all abnormal results lacking timely follow-up at 4 weeks were eventually found to have measurable clinical impact in terms of further diagnostic testing or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Critical imaging results may not receive timely follow-up actions even when HCPs receive and read results in an advanced, integrated electronic medical record system. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve patient safety in this area

Does the Electronic Health Record Improve the Timeliness Review and Notification of Medical Laboratory and X-ray Test Results?

The medical community struggles with timeliness issues throughout the different healthcare environments in many areas of patient care. The demands of meeting patient care needs is great everywhere. One area that can lead to extreme adverse outcomes and affects patient safety is failure to review and follow-up on medical test results timely. In addition the lack of timely follow-up and treatment can lead to medico-legal implications for all healthcare professionals involved in the patients care. Some timeliness issues have been attributed to understaffed healthcare institutions, lack of trained staff, and in many instances inefficient and insufficient processes. This is an important issue to improve and is very complex in nature. This study will examine the timeliness review of diagnostic test results and if the electronic health record has improved the process. Procedures will be reviewed and any adjustments will be made depending on the outcome of the analysis

Doctor of Philosophy

dissertationFollowing liver transplantation, patients require lifelong immunosuppressive care and monitoring to prevent organ rejection, drug toxicity, and death. Traditionally, transplant centers use paper-based processes that are not scalable and can lead to inefficiencies and deficiencies in information management. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools may help to overcome information management challenges, and a system-agnostic approach may help to disseminate these tools nationwide. We sought to inform the development of new transplant information systems by analyzing existing information systems. To meet this overall objective, we administered a survey and found that all liver transplant programs used manual, paper-based processes and nearly all used electronic health record (EHR) systems. Programs also had immunosuppression guidelines with similar logic patterns. Then we analyzed long-term use of a computerized notification system at one transplant center and found that a system designed specifically for the posttransplant workflow can meet long-term information management needs. Next, we assessed the clinical outcomes associated with computerized notifications for laboratory monitoring of immunosuppressive care and found that a system designed specifically for the posttransplant workflow was associated with improved clinical outcomes. Following this, we described workflow processes at two transplant centers and found that a transplant-specific notification system was associated with changes in workflow process iv measures and the satisfaction of performing laboratory monitoring tasks compared to a general EHR notification system. Finally, we administered a questionnaire to coordinators using a transplant-specific notification system and identified the usage of specific data elements in computerized notifications for posttransplant laboratory monitoring. Our findings show that near universal use of EHRs provides an infrastructure for implementing CDS tools, and logic patterns for posttransplant laboratory monitoring can be generalized to other U.S. transplant centers. Transplant-specific computerized notifications may be part of a system of processes that improve the scalability, quality, and satisfaction of patient management by postliver transplant coordinators. However, these systems must be flexible enough to accommodate new immunosuppressants and changing or additional parameters used in computerized logic as clinical practice or needs of the patient population evolve. Proactive notifications sent directly to patients regarding upcoming due dates via patient portals may also improve patient outcomes

The Electronic Health Record Scorecard: A Measure of Utilization and Communication Skills

As the adoption rate of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States continues to grow, both providers and patients will need to adapt to the reality of a third actor being present during the visit encounter. The purpose of this project is to provide insight on “best” practice patterns for effective communication and efficient use of the EHR in the clinical practice setting. Through the development of a comprehensive scorecard, this project assessed current status of EHR use and communication skills among health care providers in various clinical practice settings. Anticipated benefits of this project are increased comfortability in interfacing with the EHR and increased satisfaction on the part of the provider as well as the patient. Serving as a benchmark, this assessment has the potential to help guide future health information technology development, training, and education for both students and health care providers

Improving follow-up of abnormal cancer screens using electronic health records: trust but verify test result communication

BACKGROUND: Early detection of colorectal cancer through timely follow-up of positive Fecal Occult Blood Tests (FOBTs) remains a challenge. In our previous work, we found 40% of positive FOBT results eligible for colonoscopy had no documented response by a treating clinician at two weeks despite procedures for electronic result notification. We determined if technical and/or workflow-related aspects of automated communication in the electronic health record could lead to the lack of response. METHODS: Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, we evaluated positive FOBT communication in the electronic health record of a large, urban facility between May 2008 and March 2009. We identified the source of test result communication breakdown, and developed an intervention to fix the problem. Explicit medical record reviews measured timely follow-up (defined as response within 30 days of positive FOBT) pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: Data from 11 interviews and tracking information from 490 FOBT alerts revealed that the software intended to alert primary care practitioners (PCPs) of positive FOBT results was not configured correctly and over a third of positive FOBTs were not transmitted to PCPs. Upon correction of the technical problem, lack of timely follow-up decreased immediately from 29.9% to 5.4% (p\u3c0.01) and was sustained at month 4 following the intervention. CONCLUSION: Electronic communication of positive FOBT results should be monitored to avoid limiting colorectal cancer screening benefits. Robust quality assurance and oversight systems are needed to achieve this. Our methods may be useful for others seeking to improve follow-up of FOBTs in their systems

The frequency of missed test results and associated treatment delays in a highly computerized health system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background:</p> <p>Diagnostic errors associated with the failure to follow up on abnormal diagnostic studies ("missed results") are a potential cause of treatment delay and a threat to patient safety. Few data exist concerning the frequency of missed results and associated treatment delays within the Veterans Health Administration (VA).</p> <p>Objective:</p> <p>The primary objective of the current study was to assess the frequency of missed results and resulting treatment delays encountered by primary care providers in VA clinics.</p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>An anonymous on-line survey of primary care providers was conducted as part of the health systems ongoing quality improvement programs. We collected information from providers concerning their clinical effort (e.g., number of clinic sessions, number of patient visits per session), number of patients with missed abnormal test results, and the number and types of treatment delays providers encountered during the two week period prior to administration of our survey.</p> <p>Results:</p> <p>The survey was completed by 106 out of 198 providers (54 percent response rate). Respondents saw and average of 86 patients per 2 week period. Providers encountered 64 patients with missed results during the two week period leading up to the study and 52 patients with treatment delays. The most common missed results included imaging studies (29 percent), clinical laboratory (22 percent), anatomic pathology (9 percent), and other (40 percent). The most common diagnostic delays were cancer (34 percent), endocrine problems (26 percent), cardiac problems (16 percent), and others (24 percent).</p> <p>Conclusion:</p> <p>Missed results leading to clinically important treatment delays are an important and likely underappreciated source of diagnostic error.</p