Why Test study protocol: a UK-wide audit using the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) to explore the reasons for primary care testing.
clinical decision-making
clinical laboratory techniques
collaborative research
electronic health records
feasibility studies
general practice
hematologic tests
primary health care
Journal
BJGP open
ISSN: 2398-3795
Titre abrégé: BJGP Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101713531
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
revised:
14
04
2022
accepted:
26
04
2022
pubmed:
5
5
2022
medline:
5
5
2022
entrez:
4
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The number of blood tests done in primary care has been increasing over the past 20 years. Some estimates suggest that up to one-quarter of these tests may not have been needed. This could lead to a cascade effect of further investigations, appointments, or referrals, as well as anxiety for patients, increased workload, and costs to the health service. To better understand the impact and sequelae of blood tests on patients, it is necessary to know why blood tests are requested and what is done with the results. To explore who orders blood tests and why, and how test results are actioned in primary care. Retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices across the UK. The Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT), a UK-wide network of primary care health professionals, will be utilised to collect data from individual practices. PACT members will be asked to review the electronic health records of 50 patients who had recent blood tests in their practice, and manually extract anonymised data on who requested the test, the indication, the result, and subsequent actions. Data will also be collected from PACT members to assess the feasibility of the collaborative model. PACT offers a unique opportunity to extract clinical data which cannot otherwise be obtained. Understanding the indications for tests will help identify priority areas for research to optimise testing and patient safety in primary care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The number of blood tests done in primary care has been increasing over the past 20 years. Some estimates suggest that up to one-quarter of these tests may not have been needed. This could lead to a cascade effect of further investigations, appointments, or referrals, as well as anxiety for patients, increased workload, and costs to the health service. To better understand the impact and sequelae of blood tests on patients, it is necessary to know why blood tests are requested and what is done with the results.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To explore who orders blood tests and why, and how test results are actioned in primary care.
DESIGN & SETTING
METHODS
Retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices across the UK.
METHOD
METHODS
The Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT), a UK-wide network of primary care health professionals, will be utilised to collect data from individual practices. PACT members will be asked to review the electronic health records of 50 patients who had recent blood tests in their practice, and manually extract anonymised data on who requested the test, the indication, the result, and subsequent actions. Data will also be collected from PACT members to assess the feasibility of the collaborative model.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
PACT offers a unique opportunity to extract clinical data which cannot otherwise be obtained. Understanding the indications for tests will help identify priority areas for research to optimise testing and patient safety in primary care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35508322
pii: BJGPO.2022.0017
doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0017
pmc: PMC9680757
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, The Authors.
Références
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 04;6(2):e010374
pubmed: 26846898
Lancet. 2016 Jun 4;387(10035):2323-2330
pubmed: 27059888
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Nov;24(11):681-90
pubmed: 26251507
BMJ. 2018 Nov 28;363:k4666
pubmed: 30487169
Fam Pract. 2008 Dec;25(6):400-13
pubmed: 18842618
BMJ Open Qual. 2018 Nov 22;7(4):e000463
pubmed: 30555934
Fam Pract. 2014 Oct;31(5):592-7
pubmed: 25070182
N Engl J Med. 1986 Feb 20;314(8):512-4
pubmed: 3945278
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Jul;69(684):e470-e478
pubmed: 31208976
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):484-494
pubmed: 27530239
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 15;8(11):e78962
pubmed: 24260139
BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 27;5(11):e008968
pubmed: 26614621
BMC Med. 2018 Dec 20;16(1):229
pubmed: 30567539
J Clin Pathol. 2013 Jan;66(1):62-72
pubmed: 23015659
BMJ. 2019 Jun 13;365:l2319
pubmed: 31196976
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1334-48
pubmed: 22183961
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Oct;60(10):981-9
pubmed: 17884591
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2010 Mar;28(1):18-23
pubmed: 20121652
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Nov;24(11):691-9
pubmed: 26243888
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan;68(666):e63-e72
pubmed: 29255111
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Apr;63(609):e256-66
pubmed: 23540482
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;63(4):452-8
pubmed: 19880283
Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:23-44
pubmed: 11910053
BMJ. 2011 Mar 22;342:d1849
pubmed: 21427034