↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Follow-Up Test Results Pending at Discharge

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
A Systematic Review of Interventions to Follow-Up Test Results Pending at Discharge
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4290-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick J. Darragh, T. Bodley, A. Orchanian-Cheff, K. G. Shojania, J. L. Kwan, P. Cram

Abstract

Patients are frequently discharged from the hospital before all test results have been finalized. Thirty to 40% of tests pending at discharge (TPADs) return potentially actionable results that could necessitate change in the patients' management, often unbeknownst to their physicians. Delayed follow-up of TPADs can lead to patient harm. We sought to synthesize the existing literature on interventions intended to improve the management of TPADs, including interventions designed to enhance documentation of TPADs, increase physician awareness when TPAD results finalize post-discharge, decrease adverse events related to missed TPADs, and increase physician satisfaction with TPAD management. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Controlled Clinical Trials and Medline (January 1, 2000-November 10, 2016) for randomized controlled trials and prospective, controlled observational studies that evaluated interventions to improve follow-up of TPADs for adult patients discharged from acute care hospitals or emergency department settings. From each study we extracted characteristics of the intervention being evaluated and its impact on TPAD management. Nine studies met the criteria for inclusion. Six studies evaluated electronic discharge summary templates with a designated field for documenting TPADs, and three of six of these studies reported a significant improvement in documentation of TPADs in discharge summaries in pre- and post-intervention analysis. One study reported that auditing discharge summaries and providing feedback to physicians were associated with improved TPAD documentation in discharge summaries. Two studies found that email alerts when TPADs were finalized improved physicians' awareness of the results and documentation of their follow-up actions. Of the four studies that assessed patient morbidity, two showed a positive effect; however, none specifically measured the impact of their interventions on downstream patient harm due to delayed follow-up of TPADs. Three studies surveyed physicians' attitudes towards the interventions, of which two studies reported improved physician satisfaction with TPAD management with the implementation of an enhanced discharge template and a notification system when TPADs finalize. Discharge summary templates, educational interventions for discharging physicians, and email alerts when TPAD results are finalized show promise in improving management of TPADs. Given the complexity of the processes necessary to ensure follow-up of TPADs, rigorous evaluations of multifaceted interventions (e.g., improved discharge documentation of TPADs combined with email alerts when results become available) is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 28 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,985,499
of 24,637,659 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,058
of 7,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,117
of 451,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#57
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,637,659 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.