News/Commentary
By Cheree Cleghorn, Editor
From a British medical journal, a study of U. S. family practices shows that every phase of tests—-from ordering to reporting back to patients—-has a higher error rate than is acceptable.
Most patients understandably want good news—-or at least, don’t want to hear bad. Too many still assume that “no news is good news.”
No news is no news. Period.
Ask your doctor when the results of any test are expected. If it is not urgent, allow one extra day for lab back-ups, holidays or other delays. Then call your doctor to ask for your results if you have not heard.
You only have you to pay attention to. They have to pay attention to all of their patients.
You can’t correct errors in test ordering or whether tests are performed correctly, but you can prevent failures in reporting test results to you.
Do call when you don’t hear. It is important that you know about every test result, including “normal.”
“In about three out of four cases, patients suffered as a result of the mistakes, the study showed. In about 24 percent of cases, the mistake led to delays in proper treatment. In 22 percent of the errors, the mistake forced the patient to spend additional time or money. Mistakes caused pain and suffering in 11 percent of the cases; and 2 percent of the time, the mistake resulted in poorer health. (Emphasis added)
“The report, published in the journal Quality & Safety in Health Care, looked at testing procedures and mistakes that were reported anonymously by 243 doctors, nurses and staff members in eight small and large family physician practices in seven states. During an eight-month period, researchers from the University of Chicago analyzed the error reports related to medical testing, including ones they observed “should not have happened and that you don’t want to happen again.” The tests included lab work, diagnostic imaging and other procedures like pulmonary function tests and electrocardiograms. ”
Source: New York Times, Well, August 21, 2008
Citation Source: Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2008; 17: 286-290. doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.024869