Utilization and utility of clinical laboratory reports with graphical elements

Abstract

Background:Graphical reports that contain charts, images, and tables have potential to convey information more effectively than text-based reports; however, studies have not measured how much clinicians value such features. We sought to identify factors that might influence the utilization of reports with graphical elements postulating that this is a surrogate for relative clinical utility of these graphical elements.Materials and Methods:We implemented a pilot project at ARUP laboratories to develop online enhanced laboratory test reports that contained graphical elements. We monitored on-demand clinician access to reports generated for 48 reportable tests over 22 months. We evaluated utilization of reports with graphical elements by clinicians at all institutions that use ARUP as a reference laboratory using descriptive statistics, regression, and meta-analysis tools to evaluate groups of similar test reports.Results:Median download rate by test was 8.6% with high heterogeneity in download rates between tests. Test reports with additional graphical elements were not necessarily downloaded more often than reports without these elements. Recently implemented tests and tests reporting abnormal results were associated with higher download rates (P < 0.01). Higher volume tests were associated with lower download rates (P = 0.03).Conclusions:In select cases graphical information may be clinically useful, particularly for less frequently ordered tests and in on reports of abnormal results. The utilization data presented could be used as a reference point for other laboratories planning on implementing graphical reporting. However, between-test heterogeneity was high and in many cases graphical elements may add little clinical utility, particularly if these merely reinforce information already contained in text based reports.

Hereditary cancer gene panel test reports: wide heterogeneity suggests need for standardization

“…The disparity between language used in laboratory reports and the reading level of the user 20,21 could, however, be somewhat alleviated by using more informative section headings (for example, "Recommendation" versus "Notes"). Relegating technical details to online delivery (with links accessible to interested readers) might also help aid readability, but care should be taken to ensure that essential information is conveyed for those patients 22 or providers 23 who may not otherwise access such information. 24 In addition to general content and format variability, we also observed highly inconsistent reporting of uncertain test results.…”

Developing patient-friendly genetic and genomic test reports: formats to promote patient engagement and understanding

“…This heterogeneity of reporting formats may influence clinical interpretation, given the differing levels of familiarity with genetic and genomic tests among ordering clinicians [ 47 – 51 ]. Studies of health providers’ satisfaction and perception of the utility of clinical lab reports identified several areas for improvement with respect to the content, use of ambiguous terminology, complexity of results, unclear interpretation of results, and lack of follow-up recommendations [ 30 , 52 – 55 ]. In addition, the common use of scientific or medical jargon to describe the testing methodology, results (for example, heterozygous mutation, conserved splice site, splicing, alleles, missense mutation), interpretation (for example, ‘this mutation most likely disrupts a conserved splice site and abrogates normal splicing, causing severe defects in LMNA protein production’) and follow-up (for example, ‘maternal metaphase FISH analysis utilizing interval specific BAC probes are recommended to investigate the suspected familial rearrangement’) may pose challenges to comprehension for both providers and patients.…”

Promoting improved utilization of laboratory testing through changes in an electronic medical record: experience at an academic medical center

“…The widespread use of electronic medical records (EMRs) and computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems has an impact on laboratory test utilization. Providers working with computerized systems can potentially access thousands of possible laboratory tests from online test menus [ 23 , 24 , 29 , 36 - 38 ]. Available options for test order frequency and educational prompts may influence ordering patterns.…”