Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed methods systematic review.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Helen Nankervis, Alyson 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 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><p>Background 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 summarize existing evidence for blood test result communication between primary care providers and their patients and carers. Design and setting Mixed-methods systematic review Methods Medline, Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid); CINAHL (ESCOHost); and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2013 to September 2023. Primary studies of any design 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 randomized controlled trials. Study quality was mostly poor and risk of bias was high, partly due to a lack of reported information. 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 more information and direct release of test results to patients without clinician input was beneficial or could cause problems, such as increased workload. Conclusions We have identified a range of evidence on patient and clinician preferences, 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":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background 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 summarize existing evidence for blood test result communication between primary care providers and their patients and carers. Design and setting Mixed-methods systematic review Methods Medline, Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid); CINAHL (ESCOHost); and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2013 to September 2023. Primary studies of any design 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 randomized controlled trials. Study quality was mostly poor and risk of bias was high, partly due to a lack of reported information. 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 more information and direct release of test results to patients without clinician input was beneficial or could cause problems, such as increased workload. Conclusions We have identified a range of evidence on patient and clinician preferences, barriers and facilitators to test communication, which is particularly important in the current NHS context of a move towards patient online access.

初级医疗中血液检测结果的沟通:混合方法系统综述。
背景 检验结果的传达对于以患者为中心的医疗服务、患者安全和初级医疗工作量都非常重要。我们需要证据来确保基层医疗机构能够安全、高效地将检验结果告知患者。目的 总结初级医疗服务提供者与患者及护理者之间进行血液检验结果沟通的现有证据。设计和设置 混合方法系统综述 方法 检索了 2013 年至 2023 年 9 月期间的 Medline、Embase、PsycINFO(Ovid)、CINAHL(ESCOHost)和 Cochrane 图书馆。符合纳入条件的研究包括任何设计的初级研究,只要这些研究提供了有关初级保健人员向成年患者和照护者传达血液检测结果的信息。结果 共纳入 71 项研究,其中包括 10 项实验研究,没有随机对照试验。研究质量大多较差,偏倚风险较高,部分原因是缺乏报告信息。患者希望获得更多有关血液化验结果的信息,尤其是 "下一步该做什么 "方面的信息,并希望能尽快得到结果。在线访问或短信等电子方式普遍被接受,但并非每个人都能接受,也并非所有结果都能接受。至于更多的信息和在没有临床医生参与的情况下直接向患者公布检验结果是有益的,还是会造成问题(如增加工作量),临床医生的意见不一。结论 我们发现了一系列关于患者和临床医生的偏好、测试交流的障碍和促进因素的证据,这在当前国家医疗服务体系转向患者在线访问的背景下尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信