Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Article

‘I guess I’ll wait to hear’: a qualitative study of communication of blood test results in primary care

Jessica Watson, Chris Salisbury, Penny Whiting, William Hamilton and Jonathan Banks
British Journal of General Practice 6 June 2022; BJGP.2022.0069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0069
Jessica Watson
1 Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jessica.watson@bristol.ac.uk
Chris Salisbury
2 Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Penny Whiting
3 University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Hamilton
4 University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan Banks
1 Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Aim: This study explored GPs’ and patients’ experience of systems of blood test communication. Design and setting: Qualitative interviews with patients and GPs in UK primary care. Method: Twenty-eight patients and nineteen GPs from six practices were recruited, with a range of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Patients were interviewed at two time points: (a) at or soon after their blood test and (b) after they had received their test results. We also interviewed the GPs who requested the tests. Eighty qualitative interviews were undertaken; 54 patient interviews and 26 GP interviews. Results: Methods of test result communication varied between doctors and were based on habits, unwritten heuristics, and personal preferences rather than protocols. Doctors expected patients to know how to access their test results. In contrast, patients were often uncertain and used guesswork to decide when and how to access their tests. Patients and doctors generally assumed that the other party would make contact, with potential implications for patient safety. Text messaging and online methods of communication have benefits, but were perceived by some patients as ‘flippant’ or ‘confusing’. Delays and difficulties obtaining and interpreting test results can lead to anxiety and frustration for patients. Conclusions: Current systems of test result communication are complex and confusing, mostly based on habits and routines rather than clear protocols. This has important implications for patient centred care and patient safety.

  • Patient perspectives
  • Clinical (general)
  • Qualitative research
  • Research methods
  • Patient safety
  • Education and standards
  • Received February 4, 2022.
  • Accepted May 24, 2022.
  • Copyright © 2022, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

Online First

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
‘I guess I’ll wait to hear’: a qualitative study of communication of blood test results in primary care
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Accepted Manuscript
‘I guess I’ll wait to hear’: a qualitative study of communication of blood test results in primary care
Jessica Watson, Chris Salisbury, Penny Whiting, William Hamilton, Jonathan Banks
British Journal of General Practice 6 June 2022; BJGP.2022.0069. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0069

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Accepted Manuscript
‘I guess I’ll wait to hear’: a qualitative study of communication of blood test results in primary care
Jessica Watson, Chris Salisbury, Penny Whiting, William Hamilton, Jonathan Banks
British Journal of General Practice 6 June 2022; BJGP.2022.0069. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0069
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Patient perspectives
  • Clinical (general)
  • Qualitative research
  • Research methods
  • Patient safety
  • Education and standards

More in this TOC Section

  • Measuring continuity of care in general practice: a comparison of two methods using routinely collected data.
  • Predictors for inappropriate proton pump inhibitor use: observational study in primary care
  • Variation in suspected cancer referral pathways across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a comparative analysis
Show more Article

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242