Cited by 212Radiology practices and educationElectronic Health Records SystemsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Timely Follow-up of Abnormal Diagnostic Imaging Test Results in an Outpatient Setting: Are Electronic Medical Records Achieving Their Potential?

Open access

Abstract

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 (>1 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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.263

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 27 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 46 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 11
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 10
18 of 18
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No data exists to substantiate a similar problem for diagnostic test result alerts.

    “While no data exists to substantiate a similar problem for diagnostic test result alerts”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Because of computerized provider order entry, the ordering clinician is always known and notified.

    “Because of computerized provider order entry, the ordering clinician is always known and notified.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Institutional protocol requires documentation of verbal communication in the imaging report.

    “Institutional protocol requires that documentation of verbal communication is always included in the imaging report.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In our system, residents spend only ½ to 1 day in a two-week period in an outpatient setting usually in their own continuity clinics.

    “residents spend only ½ to 1 day in a two-week period in an outpatient setting usually in their own continuity clinics.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Duty hour rules impact resident clinic schedule.

    “In addition, duty hour rules also impact their clinic schedule.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Providers in the VA are highly dependent on the View Alert system for their abnormal test results.

    “Being their only “inbox” for all types of notifications, providers in the VA are highly dependent on the View Alert system for their abnormal test results.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations Sentinel event statistics, March 31, 2006. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations 2005 Available at: URL: http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/FA465646-5F5F-4543-AC8F-E8AF6571E372/0/root_cause_se.jpg 19343995
  2. [17]Wahls TL Haugen T Cram P Diagnostic errors associated with failure to follow up on abnormal results. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety/Joint Commission Resources 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Mani, S., Sittig, D., Arora, H., Espadas, D., Khan, M. M., & Petersen, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2009-09-28
Volume
169
Issue
17
Pages
1578-86
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143111289
Cited by
212
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
FWCI
13.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
electronic health records, clinical decision support alerts, veterans' health care, trainee physicians, health care costs, quality of care, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Communication, Continuity of Patient Care, Diagnostic Imaging, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Radiology, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Reminder Systems, Process Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review