Cited by 31Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Developing Software to “Track and Catch” Missed Follow-up of Abnormal Test Results in a Complex Sociotechnical Environment

Open access
Smith, M., Murphy, D., Laxmisan, A., Sittig, D., Reis, B., Esquivel, A., Singh, H.·2013·Applied Clinical Informatics

Abstract

Summary: Background: Abnormal test results do not always receive timely follow-up, even when providers are notified through electronic health record (EHR)-based alerts. High workload, alert fatigue, and other demands on attention disrupt a provider’s prospective memory for tasks required to initiate follow-up. Thus, EHR-based tracking and reminding functionalities are needed to improve follow-up. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to develop a decision-support software prototype enabling individual and system-wide tracking of abnormal test result alerts lacking follow-up, and to conduct formative evaluations, including usability testing. Methods: We developed a working prototype software system, the Alert Watch And Response Engine (AWARE), to detect abnormal test result alerts lacking documented follow-up, and to present context-specific reminders to providers. Development and testing took place within the VA’s EHR and focused on four cancer-related abnormal test results. Design concepts emphasized mitigating the effects of high workload and alert fatigue while being minimally intrusive. We conducted a multifaceted formative evaluation of the software, addressing fit within the larger socio-technical system. Evaluations included usability testing with the prototype and interview questions about organizational and workflow factors. Participants included 23 physicians, 9 clinical information technology specialists, and 8 quality/safety managers. Results: Evaluation results indicated that our software prototype fit within the technical environment and clinical workflow, and physicians were able to use it successfully. Quality/safety managers reported that the tool would be useful in future quality assurance activities to detect patients who lack documented follow-up. Additionally, we successfully installed the software on the local facility’s “test” EHR system, thus demonstrating technical compatibility. Conclusion: To address the factors involved in missed test results, we developed a software prototype to account for technical, usability, organizational, and workflow needs. Our evaluation has shown the feasibility of the prototype as a means of facilitating better follow-up for cancer-related abnormal test results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4338/aci-2013-04-ra-0019

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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.”
  • 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”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, M., Murphy, D., Laxmisan, A., Sittig, D., Reis, B., Esquivel, A., & Singh, H.
Affiliations
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
  • Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center (US)
Venue
Applied Clinical Informatics
Published
2013
Volume
04
Issue
03
Pages
359-375
ISSN
1869-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068338307
Cited by
31
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Clinical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
missed follow-up, laboratory abnormalities, electronic health record alerts, alarm fatigue, clinical decision support, prospective memory, provider reminders, cancer care, Veterans Affairs health system, clinical workflow, usability, quality assurance, socio-technical systems
MeSH terms
Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Neoplasms, Software, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Workflow, 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