Cited by 140Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsRadiology practices and education

Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system

Open access
Singh, H., Arora, H. S., Vij, M. S., Rao, R., Khan, M. M., Petersen, L. A.·2007·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Communication of abnormal test results in the outpatient setting is prone to error. Using information technology can improve communication and improve patient safety. We standardized processes and procedures in a computerized test result notification system and examined their effectiveness to reduce errors in communication of abnormal imaging results. DESIGN: We prospectively analyzed outcomes of computerized notification of abnormal test results (alerts) that providers did not explicitly acknowledge receiving in the electronic medical record of an ambulatory multispecialty clinic. MEASUREMENTS: In the study period, 190,799 outpatient visits occurred and 20,680 outpatient imaging tests were performed. We tracked 1,017 transmitted alerts electronically. Using a taxonomy of communication errors, we focused on alerts in which errors in acknowledgment and reception occurred. Unacknowledged alerts were identified through electronic tracking. Among these, we performed chart reviews to determine any evidence of documented response, such as ordering a follow-up test or consultation. If no response was documented, we contacted providers by telephone to determine their awareness of the test results and any follow-up action they had taken. These processes confirmed the presence or absence of alert reception. RESULTS: Providers failed to acknowledge receipt of over one-third (368 of 1,017) of transmitted alerts. In 45 of these cases (4% of abnormal results), the imaging study was completely lost to follow-up 4 weeks after the date of study. Overall, 0.2% of outpatient imaging was lost to follow-up. The rate of lost to follow-up imaging was 0.02% per outpatient visit. CONCLUSION: Imaging results continue to be lost to follow-up in a computerized test result notification system that alerted physicians through the electronic medical record. Although comparison data from previous studies are limited, the rate of results lost to follow-up appears to be lower than that reported in systems that do not use information technology comparable to what we evaluated.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m2280

Cites

32 of 32 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 result from the baseline EHR group is in line with findings from real clinical settings that indicated physicians did not acknowledge abnormal test results in approximately 4% of cases.

    “The result from the baseline EHR group is in line with findings from real clinical settings that indicated physicians did not acknowledge abnormal test results in approximately 4% of cases.19,20”

    From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion reports that providers failed to electronically acknowledge over one-third of abnormal-result alerts, not approximately 4%. The 4% figure refers instead to cases in which providers were unaware of abnormal imaging results four weeks after reporting. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Even in the EHR environment, with alerts and reminders in place, physicians continue to often inappropriately manage abnormal test results.

    “Even in the EHR environment, with alerts and reminders in place, physicians continue to often inappropriately manage abnormal test results.12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21”

    From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion (page not available) reports that abnormal imaging results were sometimes lost to follow-up despite electronic alerts. But the study found this in 4% of alerted abnormal imaging results at one VA institution; it does not establish that physicians often inappropriately manage abnormal test results generally. Failure to acknowledge an alert also did not necessarily mean failure to respond. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A sample size of 30 participants, each reviewing 35 test results, was required to achieve 80% power to detect a statistically significant difference in cognitive workload and performance.

    “On the basis of the anticipated rate of appropriately identified abnormal test results in the literature12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 and the anticipated magnitude of the association of the enhanced EHR, we required a sample size of 30 participants, each reviewing 35 test results, to achieve 80% power to detect a statistically significant difference in cognitive workload and performance.”
  • Missed laboratory results or delayed recognition of results creates a significant potential for outpatient diagnostic errors, adverse events, and liability claims.

    “missed laboratory results or delayed recognition of results leads to a significant potential for outpatient diagnostic errors, adverse events and liability claims.”
  • IT-based interventions alone cannot assure improvements in communication.

    “IT-based interventions alone, however, cannot assure improvements in communication.”

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. Final Report: Summary review: evaluation of Veterans Health Administration procedures for communicating abnormal test results. Report number 01-01965-24. 11-25-2002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, H., Arora, H. S., Vij, M. S., Rao, R., Khan, M. M., & Petersen, L. A.
Affiliations
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Singh, H.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2007-07-01
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
459-466
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W124570340
Cited by
140
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
22.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • American Heart Association (0540043N)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Research Resources (K12 RR 17665, K12RR017665)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
communication errors, loss to follow-up, electronic health record alerts, outpatient imaging, patient safety, outpatient care, follow-up activities
MeSH terms
Communication, Diagnostic Imaging, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Prospective Studies, Radiology, Texas, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Reminder Systems, 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