Explaining laboratory test results to patients: what the clinician needs to know

O’Kane, Maurice; Lopez, Berenice

doi:10.1136/bmj.h5552

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main strength of this study was the ability to compare doctors' and patients' perspectives on the same healthcare encounter, which highlighted mismatches in communication and understanding. The longitudinal nature of the study also allowed us to explore the process of information sharing, in comparison to previous research that has either focussed on decision‐making, 19 or test result communication 20,21 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The longitudinal nature of the study also allowed us to explore the process of information sharing, in comparison to previous research that has either focussed on decision-making, 19 or test result communication. 20,21 The main limitation is that interviews were based on patients' and GPs' recollection of the healthcare encounter, rather than direct observation of the doctor-patient interaction. This could lead to recall bias; for example, GPs could reinterpret their reasons for testing to rationalize their decision-making, or overestimate the information that they shared with patients, particularly when interviewed by a fellow GP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision‐making between doctors and patients

Watson

Whiting

Salisbury

et al. 2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Blood tests are commonly used in primary care as a tool to aid diagnosis, and to offer reassurance and validation for patients. If doctors and patients do not have a shared understanding of the reasons for testing and the meaning of results, these aims may not be fulfilled. Shared decision-making is widely advocated; yet, most research focusses on treatment decisions rather than diagnostic decisions. The aim of this study was to explore communication and decision-making around diagnostic blood tests in primary care.Methods: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients and clinicians in UK primary care. Patients were interviewed at the time of blood testing, with a followup interview after they received test results. Interviews with clinicians who requested the tests provided paired data to compare clinicians' and patients' expectations, experiences and understandings of tests. Interviews were analysed thematically using inductive and deductive coding.Results: A total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed.We identified a mismatch in expectations and understanding of tests, which led to downstream consequences including frustration, anxiety and uncertainty for patients. There was no evidence of shared decision-making in consultations preceding the decision to test. Doctors adopted a paternalistic approach, believing that they were protecting patients from anxiety. Conclusion:Patients were not able to develop informed preferences and did not perceive that choice is possible in decisions about testing, because they did not have sufficient information and a shared understanding of tests.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision‐making between doctors and patients

Watson

Whiting

Salisbury

et al. 2022

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[7][8][9][10] It is well acknowledged by the clinical informatics field that increasing patient access to their health data is beneficial for promoting patient education, supporting patient-centered care, and enhancing patient-clinician interactions. 2,4,[11][12][13] However, despite those potential benefits, patients' current use of diagnostic radiology data via patient portals is still limited in part due to the technical nature of the report content. 4,14,15 To address this barrier, research in clinical informatics has applied techniques such as natural language processing (NLP) to provide explanations of medical concepts extracted from radiology reports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients’ perceptions of using artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology to comprehend radiology imaging data

Zhang¹,

Citardi

Wang³

et al. 2021

Health Informatics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of radiology imaging studies are not typically comprehensible to patients. With the advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology in recent years, it is expected that AI technology can aid patients’ understanding of radiology imaging data. The aim of this study is to understand patients’ perceptions and acceptance of using AI technology to interpret their radiology reports. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 participants to elicit reflections pertaining to the use of AI technology in radiology report interpretation. A thematic analysis approach was employed to analyze the interview data. Participants have a generally positive attitude toward using AI-based systems to comprehend their radiology reports. AI is perceived to be particularly useful in seeking actionable information, confirming the doctor’s opinions, and preparing for the consultation. However, we also found various concerns related to the use of AI in this context, such as cyber-security, accuracy, and lack of empathy. Our results highlight the necessity of providing AI explanations to promote people’s trust and acceptance of AI. Designers of patient-centered AI systems should employ user-centered design approaches to address patients’ concerns. Such systems should also be designed to promote trust and deliver concerning health results in an empathetic manner to optimize the user experience.

show abstract

“…These I mark as satisfactory, but patients who are anxious, or simply pay attention to detail, often ask for further explanation and reassurance. A conversation about probability, normal distributions, and the clinical irrelevance of the technical abnormalities sometimes follows, and I have no problems with sharing my knowledge—but I just don’t have time 2…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Helen Salisbury: Unintended consequences of open access to medical notes

Salisbury

2022

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explaining laboratory test results to patients: what the clinician needs to know

Cited by 11 publications

References 5 publications

Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision‐making between doctors and patients

Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision‐making between doctors and patients

Patients’ perceptions of using artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology to comprehend radiology imaging data

Helen Salisbury: Unintended consequences of open access to medical notes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About