The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Communication Outcomes of Critical Imaging Results in a Computerized Notification System
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“missed laboratory results or delayed recognition of results leads to a significant potential for outpatient diagnostic errors, adverse events and liability claims.”
From Notification of Abnormal Lab Test Results in an Electronic Medical Record: Do Any Safety Concerns Remain? (2010) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“IT-based interventions alone, however, cannot assure improvements in communication.”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps, and emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.21,25–32”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“For instance, computerized information systems themselves can lead to unintended errors including those that involve communication processes.25,34,42”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps, and emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.21,25–32”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“For instance, the VA’s View Alert system tracks acknowledgement of abnormal test results, and results that go unacknowledged receive a higher degree of oversight to reduce the chance that the report would be lost in the system (e.g., Example 12).25”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Studies including our own have reported communication breakdowns among providers even in systems that use advanced IT.25”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institute of Medicine (2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,390
Wall, A. (2000) · British Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.12968/bjhc.2000.6.9.19311 · Cited by 5,912
Journal of the National Medical Association
(2010) · Journal of the National Medical Association · doi:10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30622-2 · Cited by 5,338
Improving Safety with Information Technology
Bates, D. W., & Gawande, A. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa020847 · Cited by 1,544
Institute of Medicine (2004) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/10863 · Cited by 528
Patient Safety Concerns Arising from Test Results That Return after Hospital Discharge
Roy, C. L., Poon, E. G., Karson, A. S., Ladak-Merchant, Z., Johnson, R. E., Maviglia, S. M., & Gandhi, T. K. (2005) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-143-2-200507190-00011 · Cited by 398
Effect of Computer-Based Alerts on the Treatment and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients
Rind, D. M. (1994) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420130107014 · Cited by 323
Poon, E. G., Gandhi, T. K., Sequist, T. D., Murff, H. J., Karson, A. S., & Bates, D. W. (2004) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.164.20.2223 · Cited by 301
Kuperman, G. J., Teich, J. M., Tanasijevic, M. J., Ma'Luf, N., Rittenberg, E., Jha, A., Fiskio, J., Winkelman, J., & Bates, D. W. (1999) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1999.0060512 · Cited by 252
Woolf, S. H. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.126 · Cited by 225
Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms
Poon, E. G., Haas, J. S., Puopolo, A. L., Gandhi, T. K., Burdick, E., Bates, D. W., & Brennan, T. A. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30357.x · Cited by 138
Communicating Critical Test Results: Safe Practice Recommendations
Hanna, D., Griswold, P., Leape, L. L., & Bates, D. W. (2005) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31011-7 · Cited by 123
Design and implementation of a comprehensive outpatient Results Manager
Poon, E. G., Wang, S. J., Gandhi, T. K., Bates, D. W., & Kuperman, G. J. (2003) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1532-0464(03)00061-3 · Cited by 111
Patient Notification and Follow-up of Abnormal Test Results: A Physician Survey
Boohaker, E. A. (1996) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1996.00440030133016 · Cited by 111
Identifying Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Using an Electronic Screening Algorithm
Singh, H. (2007) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.167.3.302 · Cited by 107
Self-citationIssues 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
Brenner, R. J., Lucey, L. L., Smith, J. J., & Saunders, R. S. (1998) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648756 · Cited by 66
Inadequate follow-up for abnormal Pap smears in an urban population.
(2003) · PubMed Central · Cited by 58
Choksi, V. R., Marn, C. S., Bell, Y., & Carlos, R. C. (2006) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.04.1913 · Cited by 53
Failure to Recognize and Act on Abnormal Test Results: The Case of Screening Bone Densitometry
Cram, P. M., Rosenthal, G. E., Ohsfeldt, R. L., Wallace, R. B., Schlechte, J., & Schiff, G. D. (2005) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31013-0 · Cited by 51
Communication Errors in Radiology: A Liability Cost Analysis
Brenner, R. J., & Bartholomew, L. (2005) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2004.08.009 · Cited by 46
Glass, R. J., & Graham, J. D. (1999) · Journal of Safety Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-4375(98)00058-9 · Cited by 29
Choksi, V. R., Marn, C., Piotrowski, M. M., Bell, Y., & Carlos, R. (2005) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2005.01.013 · Cited by 28
Editorial: Doing Better with Critical Test Results
Bates, D. W., & Leape, L. L. (2005) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31010-5 · Cited by 25
Communicating radiology results
Berlin, L. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68114-2 · Cited by 23
Introduction: Communicating Critical Test Results
Schiff, G. D. (2005) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31009-9 · Cited by 19
Evaluation and outcomes of women with a breast lump and a normal mammogram result
Haas, J. S., Kaplan, C. P., Brawarsky, P., & Kerlikowske, K. M. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0149.x · Cited by 18
Reporting significant unexpected findings: The emergence of information technology solutions
Brantley, S. D., & Brantley, R. D. (2005) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2004.11.009 · Cited by 16
Berlin, L. (2005) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.05.0651 · Cited by 14
To Err Is Human, to Correct Divine: The Emergence of Technology-Based Communication Systems
Brenner, R. J. (2006) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2006.01.021 · Cited by 12
The changing face of the Veterans Affairs health care system.
Kizer, K. W. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 11
Update: sentinel event statistics.
(2006) · PubMed · Cited by 8
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Davis, 1997, Minnesota medicine, 80, 24
- 2007, Archives of Internal Medicine, 12, 302
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine
Graber, M. L. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001615 · Cited by 626
Medical Errors Involving Trainees: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims From 5 Insurers
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Petersen, L. A., & Studdert, D. M. (2007) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.167.19.2030 · Cited by 407
Self-citationFailure to Follow-Up Test Results for Ambulatory Patients: A Systematic Review
Callen, J. L., Westbrook, J. I., Georgiou, A., & Li, J. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1949-5 · Cited by 229
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
“We allowed 4 weeks as the maximum time to follow up on non–life-threatening findings based on our previous work.(14) When we called HCPs and lack of timely follow-up was confirmed, we encouraged them to initiate appropriate follow-up action and rereviewed their records a week later to check for action.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationCallen, J. L., Georgiou, A., Li, J., & Westbrook, J. I. (2011) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.044339 · Cited by 168
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-07-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 459-466
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC2244901
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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
