Testing process errors and their harms and consequences reported from family medicine practices: a study of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network
Abstract
CONTEXT: Little is known about the types and outcomes of testing process errors that occur in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe types, predictors and outcomes of testing errors reported by family physicians and office staff. DESIGN: Events were reported anonymously. Each office completed a survey describing their testing processes prior to event reporting. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 243 clinicians and office staff of eight family medicine offices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distribution of error types, associations with potential predictors; predictors of harm and consequences of the errors. RESULTS: Participants submitted 590 event reports with 966 testing process errors. Errors occurred in ordering tests (12.9%), implementing tests (17.9%), reporting results to clinicians (24.6%), clinicians responding to results (6.6%), notifying patient of results (6.8%), general administration (17.6%), communication (5.7%) and other categories (7.8%). Charting or filing errors accounted for 14.5% of errors. Significant associations (p<0.05) existed between error types and type of reporter (clinician or staff), number of labs used by the practice, absence of a results follow-up system and patients' race/ethnicity. Adverse consequences included time lost and financial consequences (22%), delays in care (24%), pain/suffering (11%) and adverse clinical consequence (2%). Patients were unharmed in 54% of events; 18% resulted in some harm, and harm status was unknown for 28%. Using multilevel logistic regression analyses, adverse consequences or harm were more common in events that were clinician-reported, involved patients aged 45-64 years and involved test implementation errors. Minority patients were more likely than white, non-Hispanic patients to suffer adverse consequences or harm. CONCLUSIONS: Errors occur throughout the testing process, most commonly involving test implementation and reporting results to clinicians. While significant physical harm was rare, adverse consequences for patients were common. The higher prevalence of harm and adverse consequences for minority patients is a troubling disparity needing further investigation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Outpatient care is often busy and fragmented, making follow-up of abnormal laboratory test results prone to error.
“Outpatient care is often busy and fragmented, and therefore follow-up of abnormal laboratory test results is prone to error.”
From Notification of Abnormal Lab Test Results in an Electronic Medical Record: Do Any Safety Concerns Remain? (2010) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
Institute of Medicine (2004) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/10863 · Cited by 510 · see citing works
Measuring errors and adverse events in health care
Thomas, E. J., & Petersen, L. A. (2003) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20147.x · Cited by 456 · see citing works
A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice
Dovey, S. M. (2002) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qhc.11.3.233 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Self-citationWoolf, S. H. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.126 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
An international taxonomy for errors in general practice: a pilot study
Makeham, M., County, M., Kidd, M. R., & Dovey, S. M. (2002) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04668.x · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Self-citationFernald, D. H. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.221 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
The Identification of Medical Errors by Family Physicians During Outpatient Visits
Elder, N. C. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.16 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Self-citationProblems in Laboratory Testing in Primary Care
Nutting, P. A. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530320059035 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Crosson, J. C. (2005) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.326 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Issues and Initiatives in the Testing Process in Primary Care Physician Offices
Hickner, J. M., Fernald, D. H., Harris, D. M., Poon, E. G., Elder, N. C., & Mold, J. W. (2005) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31012-9 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Self-citationMedical errors in primary care: results of an international study of family practice.
Rosser, W., Dovey, S. M., Bordman, R., White, D., Crighton, E., & Drummond, N. (2005) · PubMed Central · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citationLapworth, R., & Teal, T. K. (1994) · Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1177/000456329403100113 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
The Blunder-Rate in a Clinical Biochemistry Service
Chambers, A. M., Elder, J. J., & O’Reilly, D. S. J. (1986) · Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1177/000456328602300415 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Implementing an Electronic Medical Record
Friedman, L. N., Halpern, N. A., & Fackler, J. C. (2007) · Critical Care Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2007.05.001 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Mani, S., Sittig, D., Arora, H., Espadas, D., Khan, M. M., & Petersen, L. A. (2009) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.263 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Sittig, D. F., Wilson, L., Espadas, D., Khan, M. M., & Petersen, L. A. (2010) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.07.027 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
“Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005;31(2): 63–65.”
InfluentialFrequency of Failure to Inform Patients of Clinically Significant Outpatient Test Results
Casalino, L. P., Dunham, D., Chin, M. H., Bielang, R., Kistner, E. O., Karrison, T. G., Ong, M. K., Sarkar, U., McLaughlin, M. A., & Meltzer, D. O. (2009) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.130 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Singh, H., Spitzmueller, C., Petersen, N. J., Sawhney, M. K., Smith, M. W., Murphy, D. R., Espadas, D., Laxmisan, A., & Sittig, D. F. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001267 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Understanding the management of electronic test result notifications in the outpatient setting
Hysong, S. J., Sawhney, M. K., Wilson, L., Sittig, D. F., Esquivel, A., Singh, S., & Singh, H. (2011) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-11-22 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Social Disparities in Patient Safety in Primary Care: A Systematic Review
Piccardi, C., Detollenaere, J., Vanden Bussche, P., & Willems, S. (2018) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-018-0828-7 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Management of Test Results in Family Medicine Offices
Elder, N. C., McEwen, T. R., Flach, J. M., & Gallimore, J. J. (2009) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.961 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hickner, J., Graham, D. G., Elder, N. C., Brandt, E., Emsermann, C. B., Dovey, S., & Phillips, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- American Academy of Family Physicians (US)
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- University of Colorado Health (US)
- Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Hickner, J
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2008-06-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 194-200
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2121777868
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 19.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (P20 HS11584-02, R21 HS13554-01)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- laboratory test errors, general practice, patient harm, adverse outcomes, test result reporting, test ordering, patient notification, racial and ethnic disparities, primary care quality, patient safety
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Clinical Competence, Family Practice, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Risk Management, Bias, Logistic Models, Medical Errors, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures
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
