Releasing test results directly to patients

A multisite survey of physician perspectives

Traber Davis Giardina*, Joanne Callen, Andrew Georgiou, Johanna I. Westbrook, Anthony Greisinger, Adol Esquivel, Samuel N. Forjuoh, Danielle E. Parrish, Hardeep Singh

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)
10 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

To determine physician perspectives about direct notification of normal and abnormal test results. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey at five clinical sites in the US and Australia. The US-based study was conducted via web-based survey of primary care physicians and specialists between July and October 2012. An identical paper-based survey was self-administered between June and September 2012 with specialists in Australia. Results: Of 1417 physicians invited, 315 (22.2%) completed the survey. Two-thirds (65.3%) believed that patients should be directly notified of normal results, but only 21.3% were comfortable with direct notification of clinically significant abnormal results. Physicians were more likely to endorse direct notification of abnormal results if they believed it would reduce the number of patients lost to follow-up (OR. =. 4.98, 95%CI. =. 2.21-1.21) or if they had personally missed an abnormal test result (OR. =. 2.95, 95%CI. =. 1.44-6.02). Conversely, physicians were less likely to endorse if they believed that direct notification interfered with the practice of medicine (OR. =. 0.39, 95%CI. =. 0.20-0.74). Conclusion: Physicians we surveyed generally favor direct notification of normal results but appear to have substantial concerns about direct notification of abnormal results. Practice implications: Widespread use of direct notification should be accompanied by strategies to help patients manage test result abnormalities they receive.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)788-796
Number of pages9
JournalPatient Education and Counseling
Volume98
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2015

    Fingerprint

Bibliographical note

Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Cite this