Cited by 68Electronic Health Records SystemsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

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

Open access
Hysong, Sylvia J, Sawhney, Mona K, Wilson, Lindsey, Sittig, Dean F, Esquivel, Adol, Singh, Simran, Singh, Hardeep·2011·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6947-11-22

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • The experimental design was based on previous findings that attending physicians use the EHR to manage approximately 57 test results per day over multiple interactions.

    “The experimental design was based on previous findings that attending physicians use the EHR to manage approximately 57 test results per day over multiple interactions.22,23”

    From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results section (“Number of Alerts Received,” page unavailable) supports that providers manage test-result alerts in the EHR amid a heavy alert workload. But its quoted estimate is 60–70 alerts per day, including notifications other than test results; it does not establish approximately 57 test results per day for attending physicians or specify multiple interactions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some key remaining barriers to effective management of test results are suboptimal usability of existing EHR interfaces and the high volume of abnormal test result alerts, especially less-critical alerts that produce clutter and distract from the important ones.

    “Some key remaining barriers to effective management of test results are suboptimal usability of existing EHR interfaces and the high volume of abnormal test result alerts, especially less-critical alerts that produce clutter and distract from the important ones.22,23”

    From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In previous work, the sociotechnical model was applicable in specific clinical contexts such as test results and referral communication.

    “For instance, in our previous work, we found this sociotechnical model applicable in specific clinical contexts (eg, test results and referral communication), 43 -48”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hysong, S. J., Sawhney, M. K., Wilson, L., Sittig, D. F., Esquivel, A., Singh, S., & Singh, H.
Affiliations
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
  • Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center (US)
  • Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Hysong, Sylvia J
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2011-04-12
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
22-22
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019161420
Cited by
68
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (CD2-07-0181)
  • National Institutes of Health (HFP90-020)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (T32HS017586)
  • National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
electronic alerts, electronic health records, outpatient care, clinical workflow redesign, primary care providers, Veterans Affairs health care, barriers and facilitators
MeSH terms
Communication, Continuity of Patient Care, Humans, Management Information Systems, Outpatients, Veterans, Reminder Systems, Electronic Health Records

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