Cited by 92Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Systems and TechnologyClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Primary care practitioners' views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey

Open access
Singh, Hardeep, Spitzmueller, Christiane, Petersen, Nancy J, Sawhney, Mona K, Smith, Michael W, Murphy, Daniel R, Espadas, Donna, Laxmisan, Archana +1 more·2013·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

CONTEXT: Failure to notify patients of test results is common even when electronic health records (EHRs) are used to report results to practitioners. We sought to understand the broad range of social and technical factors that affect test result management in an integrated EHR-based health system. METHODS: Between June and November 2010, we conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of all primary care practitioners (PCPs) within the Department of Veterans Affairs nationwide. Survey development was guided by a socio-technical model describing multiple inter-related dimensions of EHR use. FINDINGS: Of 5001 PCPs invited, 2590 (51.8%) responded. 55.5% believed that the EHRs did not have convenient features for notifying patients of test results. Over a third (37.9%) reported having staff support needed for notifying patients of test results. Many relied on the patient's next visit to notify them for normal (46.1%) and abnormal results (20.1%). Only 45.7% reported receiving adequate training on using the EHR notification system and 35.1% reported having an assigned contact for technical assistance with the EHR; most received help from colleagues (60.4%). A majority (85.6%) stayed after hours or came in on weekends to address notifications; less than a third reported receiving protected time (30.1%). PCPs strongly endorsed several new features to improve test result management, including better tracking and visualization of result notifications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an advanced EHR, both social and technical challenges exist in ensuring notification of test results to practitioners and patients. Current EHR technology requires significant improvement in order to avoid similar challenges elsewhere.

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 · 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001267

Cites

59 of 59 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: 3

  1. [3]Lorincz CY Drazen E Sokol PE Research in Ambulatory Patient Safety 2000–2010: a 10-year review. Am Med Assoc 2011 Available at: www.ama-assn.org/go/patientsafety. (accessed 3 Dec 2012)
  2. [17]Final Report: Summary review: Evaluation of Veterans Health Administration procedures for communicating abnormal test results. Report number 01-01965-24. 11-25-2002. Ref Type: Report
  3. [27]Jha AK Ferris TG Donelan K How common are electronic health records in the United States? A summary of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25: w496– 507 17035341

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, H., Spitzmueller, C., Petersen, N. J., Sawhney, M. K., Smith, M. W., Murphy, D. R., Espadas, D., Laxmisan, A., & Sittig, D. F.
Affiliations
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
Corresponding author
Singh, Hardeep
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2013-07
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
727-735
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W125667916
Cited by
92
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7
FWCI
13.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (10510592)
  • VA National Center for Patient Safety
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM006942)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
test result management, electronic health records, primary care physicians, socio-technical model, EHR usability, veterans' health care
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Primary Health Care, United States, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Electronic Health Records, Physicians, Primary 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.

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