Adaption, implementation and evaluation of collaborative service improvements in the testing and result communication process in primary care from patient and staff perspectives: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of blood tests are being ordered in primary care settings and the swift and accurate communication of test results is central to providing high quality care. The process of testing and result communication is complex and reliant on the coordinated actions of care providers, external groups in laboratory and hospital settings, and patients. This fragmentation leaves it vulnerable to error and the need to improve an apparently fallible system is apparent. However, primary care is complex and does not necessarily adopt change in a linear and prescribed manner influenced by a range of factors relating to practice staff, patients and organisational factors. To account for these competing perspectives, we worked in conjunction with both staff and patients to develop and implement strategies intended to improve patient satisfaction and increase efficiency of existing processes. METHODS: The study applied the principles of 'experience-based co-design' to identify key areas of weakness and source proposals for change from staff and patients. The study was undertaken within two primary practices situated in South Birmingham (UK) of contrasting size and socio-economic environment. Senior practice staff were involved in the refinement of the interventions for introduction. We conducted focus groups singly constituted of staff and patients at each practice to determine suitability, applicability and desirability alongside the practical implications of their introduction. RESULTS: At each practice four of the six proposals for change were implemented these were increased access to phlebotomy, improved receptionist training, proactive communication of results, and increased patient awareness of the tests ordered and the means of their communication. All were received favourably by both patients and staff. The remaining issues around the management of telephone calls and the introduction of electronic alerts for missing results were not addressed due to constraints of time and available resources. CONCLUSIONS: Approaches to tackling the same area of weakness differed at practices and was determined by individual staff attitudes and by organisational and patient characteristics. The long-term impact of the changes requires further quantitative evaluation.

Patient perspectives on test result communication in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although the number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase, efficient systems for the communication of blood test results to patients are lacking. This is a concern in terms of both patient safety and patient satisfaction. AIM: To gain an understanding of patient perspectives on organisational and technological aspects of current and prospective systems for communicating laboratory test results in primary care, and the influences that impact patients' preferred methods for receiving results. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using patient focus groups in four primary care practices in Birmingham, UK. METHOD: The primary care practices were purposively selected to ensure they varied in size, socioeconomic environment, and the default pathways they used to communicate test results. A total of 26 patients from the four practices who had had a recent blood test were recruited. Over a 6 month period in 2011, six, 1-hour focus groups were conducted at the four practices involved in the study. RESULTS: Patients expressed a preference for receiving results from the ordering GP or a clinically qualified member of staff. Suggestions for refining current systems included improved access to phlebotomy appointments, better management of patient telephone calls, and a clear, accessible protocol for the communication of results. CONCLUSION: Despite the testing and result communication process being a core activity in primary care, it was found that practices could improve their service in a number of areas. Patients described frequent delays and inconsistency in both the level of information and the method of communication, as well as dissatisfaction with non-clinical staff relaying results. Patient preferences for result communication based on their experience of current systems have produced practical suggestions to improve processes.

Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the results of laboratory tests are communicated to patients in primary care and perceptions on how the process may be improved. DESIGN: Qualitative study employing staff focus groups. SETTING: Four UK primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Staff involved in the communication of test results. FINDINGS: Five main themes emerged from the data: (i) the default method for communicating results differed between practices; (ii) clinical impact of results and patient characteristics such as anxiety level or health literacy influenced methods by which patients received their test result; (iii) which staff member had responsibility for the task was frequently unclear; (iv) barriers to communicating results existed, including there being no system or failsafe in place to determine whether results were returned to a practice or patient; (v) staff envisaged problems with a variety of test result communication methods discussed, including use of modern technologies, such as SMS messaging or online access. CONCLUSIONS: Communication of test results is a complex yet core primary care activity necessitating flexibility by both patients and staff. Dealing with the results from increasing numbers of tests is resource intensive and pressure on practice staff can be eased by greater utilization of electronic communication. Current systems appear vulnerable with no routine method of tracing delayed or missing results. Instead, practices only become aware of missing results following queries from patients. The creation of a test communication protocol for dissemination among patients and staff would help ensure both groups are aware of their roles and responsibilities.

What is the best strategy for investigating abnormal liver function tests in primary care? Implications from a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of predictive value of liver function tests (LFTs) for the detection of liver-related disease in primary care. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: 11 UK primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n=1290) with an abnormal eight-panel LFT (but no previously diagnosed liver disease). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were investigated by recording clinical features, and repeating LFTs, specific tests for individual liver diseases, and abdominal ultrasound scan. Patients were characterised as having: hepatocellular disease; biliary disease; tumours of the hepato-biliary system and none of the above. The relationship between LFT results and disease categories was evaluated by stepwise regression and logistic discrimination, with adjustment for demographic and clinical factors. True and False Positives generated by all possible LFT combinations were compared with a view towards optimising the choice of analytes in the routine LFT panel. RESULTS: Regression methods showed that alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was associated with hepatocellular disease (32 patients), while alkaline phosphatase (ALP) was associated with biliary disease (12 patients) and tumours of the hepatobiliary system (9 patients). A restricted panel of ALT and ALP was an efficient choice of analytes, comparing favourably with the complete panel of eight analytes, provided that 48 False Positives can be tolerated to obtain one additional True Positive. Repeating a complete panel in response to an abnormal reading is not the optimal strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The LFT panel can be restricted to ALT and ALP when the purpose of testing is to exclude liver disease in primary care.

Should patients with abnormal liver function tests in primary care be tested for chronic viral hepatitis: cost minimisation analysis based on a comprehensively tested cohort.

BACKGROUND: Liver function tests (LFTs) are ordered in large numbers in primary care, and the Birmingham and Lambeth Liver Evaluation Testing Strategies (BALLETS) study was set up to assess their usefulness in patients with no pre-existing or self-evident liver disease. All patients were tested for chronic viral hepatitis thereby providing an opportunity to compare various strategies for detection of this serious treatable disease. METHODS: This study uses data from the BALLETS cohort to compare various testing strategies for viral hepatitis in patients who had received an abnormal LFT result. The aim was to inform a strategy for identification of patients with chronic viral hepatitis. We used a cost-minimisation analysis to define a base case and then calculated the incremental cost per case detected to inform a strategy that could guide testing for chronic viral hepatitis. RESULTS: Of the 1,236 study patients with an abnormal LFT, 13 had chronic viral hepatitis (nine hepatitis B and four hepatitis C). The strategy advocated by the current guidelines (repeating the LFT with a view to testing for specific disease if it remained abnormal) was less efficient (more expensive per case detected) than a simple policy of testing all patients for viral hepatitis without repeating LFTs. A more selective strategy of viral testing all patients for viral hepatitis if they were born in countries where viral hepatitis was prevalent provided high efficiency with little loss of sensitivity. A notably high alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level (greater than twice the upper limit of normal) on the initial ALT test had high predictive value, but was insensitive, missing half the cases of viral infection. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis and on widely accepted clinical principles, a "fast and frugal" heuristic was produced to guide general practitioners with respect to diagnosing cases of viral hepatitis in asymptomatic patients with abnormal LFTs. It recommends testing all patients where a clear clinical indication of infection is present (e.g. evidence of intravenous drug use), followed by testing all patients who originated from countries where viral hepatitis is prevalent, and finally testing those who have a notably raised ALT level (more than twice the upper limit of normal). Patients not picked up by this efficient algorithm had a risk of chronic viral hepatitis that is lower than the general population.