BMJ Open Quality (Nov 2023)

Implementing a safer and more reliable system to monitor test results at a teaching university-affiliated facility in a family medicine group: a quality improvement process report

  • Marie-Victoria Dorimain,
  • Mireille Plouffe-Malette,
  • Manon Paquette,
  • Karine Bériault

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002291
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 4

Abstract

Read online

Introduction Prescribers have the medicolegal responsibility to ensure a sufficiently reliable system is in place to securely monitor the process of efficiently communicating laboratory results. With added complexity of technologies such as electronic medical record systems, few studies address the monitoring, verification and improvement of test results follow-up especially within a teaching facility including resident prescribers.Method The main goal of this quality improvement project was to ensure safety of care through reliable test results follow-up and adapting processes to available technology by (1) implementing an improved, more reliable and efficient system for tracking test results in the setting; and (2) increasing perceived reliability of test results monitoring system of prescribers in the clinical setting. Through three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, changes were implemented: (1) family medicine residents recognised as prescribers; (2) connection of prescribers to regional techno-centre; and (3) computer protocol eliminating duplicates. Patients and clinical staff completed surveys (satisfaction, perceived safety and reliability).Analysis Quantitative and qualitative data were collected, reported incidents, requested prescriptions and received results and time spent communicating normal results. Immediate feedback from prescribers and staff members was considered to improve the process. Microsoft Excel software was used to calculate mean and SD of error rate. Shewhart chart rules were used to determine special cause of change and sustainability.Results Implemented changes led to decrease in mean error rate (from 6.1% to 1.9%), variation of range (from 2.7–12.1% to 0–4.8%) and SD (from 2.1% to 1.2%). The improvement is sustained over 24 months after the last cycle. 100% of the 30 patients surveyed were satisfied with the changes implemented. Prescribers (75% response rate) including residents (15.8% response rate) perceived the improved system to be safer, more reliable and efficient.Conclusion Implemented changes improved reliability, efficiency and perceived safety of the test results monitoring system while ensuring patient satisfaction.