Helen Nankervis, Alyson L Huntley, Penny Whiting, William Hamilton, Hardeep Singh, Sarah Dawson, Rachel O'Donnell, Jane Sprackman, Anna Ferguson Montague, Jessica Watson
{"title":"Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.","authors":"Helen Nankervis, Alyson L Huntley, Penny Whiting, William Hamilton, Hardeep Singh, Sarah Dawson, Rachel O'Donnell, Jane Sprackman, Anna Ferguson Montague, Jessica Watson","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Online records access, including test results, was rolled out as part of changes to the GP contract in England in 2023. Blood test result communication is important for patient-centred care, patient safety, and primary care workload. Evidence is needed to ensure that test results are communicated safely and efficiently to patients in primary care.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To summarise existing evidence for blood test result communication between primary care providers and their patients and carers.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A mixed-methods systematic review was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2013-September 2023. Qualitative or quantitative studies that provided information on the communication of blood test results by primary care staff to adult patients and carers were eligible for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 71 included studies, including 10 experimental studies and no randomised controlled trials. Study quality was mostly poor and risk of bias was high, partly owing to a lack of reported information. The studies found that patients want more information about their blood test results, particularly in terms of 'what next', and prefer results to be provided quickly. Electronic methods, such as online access or text messages, were generally well accepted but not by everyone, and not for all results. Clinicians' opinions were mixed as to whether online direct release of test results to patients was beneficial or could cause problems, such as increased patient anxiety and increased workload.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A range of evidence has been identified on patient and clinician preferences, and barriers and facilitators to test communication, which is particularly important in the current NHS context of a move towards patient online access.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e222-e231"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881010/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0338","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Online records access, including test results, was rolled out as part of changes to the GP contract in England in 2023. Blood test result communication is important for patient-centred care, patient safety, and primary care workload. Evidence is needed to ensure that test results are communicated safely and efficiently to patients in primary care.
Aim: To summarise existing evidence for blood test result communication between primary care providers and their patients and carers.
Design and setting: A mixed-methods systematic review was undertaken.
Method: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2013-September 2023. Qualitative or quantitative studies that provided information on the communication of blood test results by primary care staff to adult patients and carers were eligible for inclusion.
Results: There were 71 included studies, including 10 experimental studies and no randomised controlled trials. Study quality was mostly poor and risk of bias was high, partly owing to a lack of reported information. The studies found that patients want more information about their blood test results, particularly in terms of 'what next', and prefer results to be provided quickly. Electronic methods, such as online access or text messages, were generally well accepted but not by everyone, and not for all results. Clinicians' opinions were mixed as to whether online direct release of test results to patients was beneficial or could cause problems, such as increased patient anxiety and increased workload.
Conclusion: A range of evidence has been identified on patient and clinician preferences, and barriers and facilitators to test communication, which is particularly important in the current NHS context of a move towards patient online access.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.