Cited by 111Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Design and implementation of a comprehensive outpatient Results Manager

Open access
Poon, Eric G., Wang, Samuel J., Gandhi, Tejal K., Bates, David W., Kuperman, Gilad J.·2003·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Prior research has demonstrated that clinicians often fail to review and act upon outpatient test results in a timely and appropriate manner. To address this patient safety and quality of care issue, Partners Healthcare has developed a browser-based, provider-centric, comprehensive results management application to help clinic physicians review and act upon test results in a safe, reliable, and efficient manner. The application, called the Results Manager, incorporates extensive decision support features to classify the degree of abnormality for each result, presents guidelines to help clinicians manage abnormal results, allows clinicians to generate result letters to patients with predefined, context-sensitive templates and prompts physicians to set reminders for future testing. In this paper, we outline the design process and functionality of Results Manager. We also discuss its underlying architectural design, which revolves around a clinical event monitor and a rules engine, and the methodological challenges encountered in designing this application.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1532-0464(03)00061-3

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Reason J. Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Poon, E. G., Wang, S. J., Gandhi, T. K., Bates, D. W., & Kuperman, G. J.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Poon, Eric G.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-02
Volume
36
Issue
1-2
Pages
80-91
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045149120
Cited by
111
References
21
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
11.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 1U18 HS 11046-03, HS11046)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
clinical decision support, patient reminders, rule engine, web application, patient safety, quality of care, application architecture
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Database Management Systems, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Knowledge of Results, Psychological, Patient Care Management, Pilot Projects, Software, Software Design, Software Validation, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Medical Errors, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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.

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