Many health care institutions are implementing patient portals that allow patients to track and maintain their personal health information, mostly in response to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act requirements. Test results review is an area of high interest to patients and provides an opportunity to foster their involvement in preventing abnormal test results from being overlooked, a common patient safety concern. However, little is known about how patients engage with portals to review abnormal results and which strategies could facilitate that interaction in order to ensure safe follow-up on abnormalities. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore patients’ experiences related to abnormal test result notifications through patient portals. The authors conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 participants, patients and primary caregivers, between February 2014 and October 2014. Using content analysis, the authors explored patient experiences accessing abnormal test results through their portals. Respondents strongly favored access to all types of abnormal test results, but they raised several concerns including need for more timely notification and not being able to interpret the exact relevance of the result. Respondents’ personal experiences with physicians, test result notification, and the portal heavily influenced respondents’ notification preferences. Patient experiences with portals could be improved by development of strategies to help patients understand and manage the information received. These findings suggest important considerations for health professionals and institutions aiming to better engage patients in follow-up of their test results.

Most missed colonoscopy appointments resulted from potentially preventable travel- and scheduling-related issues. Because barriers to keeping colonoscopy appointments are different across health systems, each health system might need to develop unique interventions to reduce missed colonoscopy appointments.

Background Checklists have been shown to improve performance of complex, error-prone processes. To develop a checklist with potential to reduce the likelihood of diagnostic error for patients presenting to the Emergency Room (ER) with undiagnosed conditions. Methods Participants included 15 staff ER physicians working in two large academic centers. A rapid cycle design and evaluation process was used to develop a general checklist for high-risk situations vulnerable to diagnostic error. Physicians used the general checklists and a set of symptom-specific checklists for a period of 2 months. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation that included interviews regarding user perceptions and quantitative assessment of resource utilization before and after checklist use. Results A general checklist was developed iteratively by obtaining feedback from users and subject matter experts, and was trialed along with a set of specific checklists in the ER. Both the general and the symptom-specific checklists were judged to be helpful, with a slight preference for using symptom-specific lists. Checklist use commonly prompted consideration of additional diagnostic possibilities, changed the working diagnosis in approximately 10% of cases, and anecdotally was thought to be helpful in avoiding diagnostic errors. Checklist use was prompted by a variety of different factors, not just diagnostic uncertainty. None of the physicians used the checklists in collaboration with the patient, despite being encouraged to do so. Checklist use did not prompt large changes in test ordering or consultation. Conclusions In the ER setting, checklists for diagnosis are helpful in considering additional diagnostic possibilities, thus having potential to prevent diagnostic errors. Inconsistent usage and using the checklists privately, instead of with the patient, are factors that may detract from obtaining maximum benefit. Further research is needed to optimize checklists for use in the ER, determine how to increase usage, to evaluate the impact of checklist utilization on error rates and patient outcomes, to determine how checklist usage affects test ordering and consultation, and to compare checklists generally with other approaches to reduce diagnostic error.