Search

The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify differences in the utilisation of an electronic medical record test–result management system between two acute care departments. Field observations (130 min) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) were conducted in the Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Department of an Australian hospital. Work processes identified from audio transcripts were modelled using business process modelling. Comparison of the Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit identified the following: (1) test ordering variations according to clinical roles, (2) differences in the use of electronic medical record functionality according to specific demands of the clinical environment and (3) the non-linear components of the test–result management process. Variations were identified in the number of process decisions, external collaborations and temporal process workflows. Modelling the business processes, collaboration and communication needs of individual clinical environments can aid in enhancing the quality and appositeness of health information technology interventions and thus contribute to improving patient safety. Future health information technology interventions/evaluations aimed at improving the safety of test–result management processes need to address both the nuances of the clinical environment and accommodate the individual work practices of clinicians within that environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate the communication processes involving test-related information in Australian Emergency Departments (EDs); specifically what and how ED clinicians communicate test-related information to patients, what patients know and understand about the provided information, and how patients view the potential to access their test-results electronically.Methods: We conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 26) and patients (n = 32) across three Australian EDs. Interviews were transcribed and analysed iteratively, following principles of qualitative content analysis and grounded theory.Results: Depending on various contextual (e.g. time pressures) and patient factors (e.g. perceived health literacy), ED clinicians provided, and patients recalled receiving, test-related information along a continuum, ranging from "no or limited" information to "specific" information. Many patients were confused about how to access their test-results. Patients welcomed the potential for future electronic access to results but viewed their individual health and/or computer literacy skills and knowledge as potential barriers.Conclusions: EDs are highly dynamic environments where contextual forces impinge on the amount and quality of test-related information that clinicians communicate to ED patients.Practice Implications: Systemic and patient factors need to be addressed to optimise the provision of test-related information in ED settings, improve patient understanding and foster patient empowerment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]