How well do general practitioners manage laboratory test results for patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease?: A systematic review

Euan J. Mccaughey, Julie Li, Tony C. Badrick, Johanna I. Westbrook, Andrew Georgiou

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate how well general practitioners (GPs) manage and respond to laboratory results for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, EBM reviews, ProQuest and Scopus. Study selection: Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2015 that assessed GPs' management of laboratory results for patients with DM or CVD. Data extraction: Study design and demographics, laboratory tests and key findings relating to GP management of laboratory results were extracted from studies. Results of data synthesis: Thirteen articles were included, comprising seven studies which utilized surveys, four observational studies, one cohort study and one randomized controlled trial. Findings indicate that GPs often overestimate the risk of complications associated with DM and CVD based on laboratory results and have unrealistically high expectations regarding the precision of laboratory tests. Considerable variation existed in the use of repeat testing for diagnostic confirmation and in GPs' identification of the difference between two consecutive results required to indicate a change in patient condition. GPs also often failed to initiate appropriate treatment for patients with DM and CVD based on laboratory results. Feedback to GPs about their test ordering patterns and educational messages on laboratory results improved clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Evidence about how well GPs manage results and its impact on patient outcomes remains weak and inconclusive. This review identified a number of areas where interventions could support GPs to improve the interpretation and management of laboratory test results, including feedback to GPs and educational messages on test result reports.

LanguageEnglish
Article numbermzx105
Pages769-778
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care
Volume29
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2017

Fingerprint

General Practitioners
Diabetes Mellitus
Cardiovascular Diseases
Information Storage and Retrieval
MEDLINE
Observational Studies
Cohort Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials
Demography

Keywords

  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • General practice
  • Laboratory medicine
  • Management
  • Primary care

Cite this

@article{9cb2c366315345e0b7f3529765ebc8e5,
title = "How well do general practitioners manage laboratory test results for patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease?: A systematic review",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate how well general practitioners (GPs) manage and respond to laboratory results for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, EBM reviews, ProQuest and Scopus. Study selection: Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2015 that assessed GPs' management of laboratory results for patients with DM or CVD. Data extraction: Study design and demographics, laboratory tests and key findings relating to GP management of laboratory results were extracted from studies. Results of data synthesis: Thirteen articles were included, comprising seven studies which utilized surveys, four observational studies, one cohort study and one randomized controlled trial. Findings indicate that GPs often overestimate the risk of complications associated with DM and CVD based on laboratory results and have unrealistically high expectations regarding the precision of laboratory tests. Considerable variation existed in the use of repeat testing for diagnostic confirmation and in GPs' identification of the difference between two consecutive results required to indicate a change in patient condition. GPs also often failed to initiate appropriate treatment for patients with DM and CVD based on laboratory results. Feedback to GPs about their test ordering patterns and educational messages on laboratory results improved clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Evidence about how well GPs manage results and its impact on patient outcomes remains weak and inconclusive. This review identified a number of areas where interventions could support GPs to improve the interpretation and management of laboratory test results, including feedback to GPs and educational messages on test result reports.",
keywords = "Cardiovascular disease, Diabetes mellitus, General practice, Laboratory medicine, Management, Primary care",
author = "Mccaughey, {Euan J.} and Julie Li and Badrick, {Tony C.} and Westbrook, {Johanna I.} and Andrew Georgiou",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/intqhc/mzx105",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "769--778",
journal = "International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua",
issn = "1353-4505",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "6",

}

How well do general practitioners manage laboratory test results for patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease? A systematic review. / Mccaughey, Euan J.; Li, Julie; Badrick, Tony C.; Westbrook, Johanna I.; Georgiou, Andrew.

In: International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 29, No. 6, mzx105, 01.10.2017, p. 769-778.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How well do general practitioners manage laboratory test results for patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease?

T2 - International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua

AU - Mccaughey, Euan J.

AU - Li, Julie

AU - Badrick, Tony C.

AU - Westbrook, Johanna I.

AU - Georgiou, Andrew

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate how well general practitioners (GPs) manage and respond to laboratory results for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, EBM reviews, ProQuest and Scopus. Study selection: Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2015 that assessed GPs' management of laboratory results for patients with DM or CVD. Data extraction: Study design and demographics, laboratory tests and key findings relating to GP management of laboratory results were extracted from studies. Results of data synthesis: Thirteen articles were included, comprising seven studies which utilized surveys, four observational studies, one cohort study and one randomized controlled trial. Findings indicate that GPs often overestimate the risk of complications associated with DM and CVD based on laboratory results and have unrealistically high expectations regarding the precision of laboratory tests. Considerable variation existed in the use of repeat testing for diagnostic confirmation and in GPs' identification of the difference between two consecutive results required to indicate a change in patient condition. GPs also often failed to initiate appropriate treatment for patients with DM and CVD based on laboratory results. Feedback to GPs about their test ordering patterns and educational messages on laboratory results improved clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Evidence about how well GPs manage results and its impact on patient outcomes remains weak and inconclusive. This review identified a number of areas where interventions could support GPs to improve the interpretation and management of laboratory test results, including feedback to GPs and educational messages on test result reports.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate how well general practitioners (GPs) manage and respond to laboratory results for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, EBM reviews, ProQuest and Scopus. Study selection: Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2015 that assessed GPs' management of laboratory results for patients with DM or CVD. Data extraction: Study design and demographics, laboratory tests and key findings relating to GP management of laboratory results were extracted from studies. Results of data synthesis: Thirteen articles were included, comprising seven studies which utilized surveys, four observational studies, one cohort study and one randomized controlled trial. Findings indicate that GPs often overestimate the risk of complications associated with DM and CVD based on laboratory results and have unrealistically high expectations regarding the precision of laboratory tests. Considerable variation existed in the use of repeat testing for diagnostic confirmation and in GPs' identification of the difference between two consecutive results required to indicate a change in patient condition. GPs also often failed to initiate appropriate treatment for patients with DM and CVD based on laboratory results. Feedback to GPs about their test ordering patterns and educational messages on laboratory results improved clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Evidence about how well GPs manage results and its impact on patient outcomes remains weak and inconclusive. This review identified a number of areas where interventions could support GPs to improve the interpretation and management of laboratory test results, including feedback to GPs and educational messages on test result reports.

KW - Cardiovascular disease

KW - Diabetes mellitus

KW - General practice

KW - Laboratory medicine

KW - Management

KW - Primary care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040554685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/intqhc/mzx105

DO - 10.1093/intqhc/mzx105

M3 - Review article

VL - 29

SP - 769

EP - 778

JO - International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua

JF - International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua

SN - 1353-4505

IS - 6

M1 - mzx105

ER -