The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and patient online portals provide individuals with increased rights to access their results and to the portability of their personal data. This allows patients to obtain and reuse their personal data for their own purposes . Patients benefit from immediate access to their medical records and laboratory test results. Immediate receipt of results and diagnoses can reduce the incidence of errors and accidents of care.
Three key issues in providing responsible access for patients to their results in the general practice (GP) include safety, capacity and consultation, as described below, which are core principles of the P4 (preventive, predictive, personalized and participatory) Health approach.
The delivery of care by general practitioners (GPs)/family physicians should be safe, effective, timely, patient-centred, equitable and efficient. One of the critical components of high-quality patient care is efficient and accurate clinical laboratory testing as many clinical decisions depend on laboratory test results . It is, therefore, imperative that test results are appropriately and timely communicated not only to medical practitioners but also to patients .
Accurate and efficient clinical laboratory testing is a critical component of high quality patient care as laboratory test results influence many medical decisions and consultations, including diagnosis, prognosis, risk and predictive assessment, prevention, screening and the monitoring of treatments and therapies. In addition, aggregate test result data are used for public health surveillance, healthcare performance measurement, and quality improvement . The quality of laboratory testing, therefore, may greatly affect the quality and affordability of patient care and any defects or errors impact on the care of each patient as well as the costs incurred by the healthcare system .
However, the laboratory testing process is complex and consists of many steps, beginning with test selection and request, followed by sample collection, transport, processing and analysis, and finally, result reporting and interpretation. We therefore look at the relationship between the laboratory, the GP consultation, the patient, safety and general practice capacity.
The report of the International Organization of Medicine (IOM)  found that the current system was unable to provide safe, high-quality care in a consistent manner. The report’s recommendations consisted of 10 rules (Table 1) to redesign the health system and a series of recommendations.
Private and public health purchasers, health care organisations, clinicians, and patients should work together to redesign health care processes in accordance with the 10 rules suggested by the IOM (Table 1).
However, “there is surprisingly little research on ‘safe’ levels of working, although there is evidence around doctor fatigue and an increase in errors, litigation or mistakes. Limiting appointment rates, or any other rate limitation method, will require improved triage and care navigation” .
In the report “Workload Control in General Practice Ensuring Patient Safety Through Demand Management” of the British Medical Association (BMA) , the authors state “There is an urgent need for a campaign led by the GPC (General Practitioners Committee), to focus on the problems caused by the current GP workload within the NHS. This issue affects most practices and is of particular significance to GP partners, although those under employment contracts often report similar problems. It is certainly a factor behind the rise in the number of “independent” or locum GPs, who have chosen to work flexibly and maintain a better work-life balance, rather than take on unmanageable workloads”.
The BMA report also states: “Workload has increased through genuine and growing patient needs (complex multi-morbidity) in primary care. The consultation rate in the UK is 2–3 times that of comparable EU populations. Between 2007 and 2014 overall consultation rates for GPs in England rose by 13.6%. Consultations grew by more than 15% between 2010/11 and 2014/15” .
“The number of telephone consultations with GPs doubled (99.6% increase), though face-to-face surgery consultations, which rose 6.4%, still accounted for nearly 90% of all consultations. In 2013/14, the rate of increase in the number of face-to-face consultations per patient plateaued” .
“There is no longer any slack – GPs and nurses are now consulting throughout the booked clinic without a break and demand for those clinic slots is rising” . Studies on patient access to records demonstrate that patients use their own records and results to supplement their care, reduce GP workload and increase the number of available clinic slots and GP capacity .
Consultation is the most important process in the primary care healthcare environment. It is therefore imperative to explain and understand the following issues: What are consultations in English General Practice? How can they be made more effective and safer? How can access to laboratory results help?
In ‘The Exceptional Potential in each Primary Care Consultation’ , the authors described four areas to be systematically explored each time a patient consults:
Management of the patient’s presenting problem.
Modification of help-seeking behaviours (including monitoring of results).
Management of continuing problems (including management of results).
Opportunistic health promotion (including discussion of results).
The consultation is described as “‘the central act of medicine’ which ‘deserves to be understood’. It is clearly central to the transaction between doctors and patients and central to the relationship between doctors and patients” .
In addition, The Consultation – An Approach to Learning and Teaching  describes seven tasks which taken together form comprehensive and coherent aims for any consultation. From observation, seven tasks were detailed which together form comprehensive aims for the consultation (Table 3).
Fitting disruptive laboratory technology into the GP consultation workflow
The final steps of the consultation
In 1975, on describing the testing process as the “brain-to-brain loop”, George D. Lundberg stressed that what counts is the final step of the cycle: the appropriateness of the action(s) undertaken on the individual patient and based on the laboratory information provided. Lundberg also stated: “unless the appropriate action occurs, it is as if the cycle had never begun and is, at the most, a tragedy and, at the least, a waste” .
According to this viewpoint, which is consistent with a patient-centred approach, all steps of the testing cycle should be evaluated and continuously monitored by the patient as well as by the clinician to assure that high-quality laboratory information is provided and that, in turn, an appropriate action is taken for the individual patient.
The process of testing and communicating laboratory test results to patients is complex in primary care in some countries such as the UK . In the process of the traditional practice of clinical laboratory testing and communicating process (Figure 1), patients are invited to the GP in the case of abnormal test results while in the case of normal results the GP usually takes no action, which could leave patients in uncertainty and wonder about their test results. In this regards, empirical evidence shows in the case of normal results 80% of GPs expect the patient to call for their test results and in the case of abnormal results, 40% of GPs also expect patients to inquire about their test results .
Failure of test result communication reduces patient safety . Generally, patients do not contact their GP for enquiring about test results except when they are seriously ill . Failing to inform patients of clinically significant abnormal test results is not uncommon . The practice of ordering tests and of communicating the results of laboratory tests to patients need to fit with a patient-centred approach to medical care in which patients are partners in the decision making .
There are several barriers that delay or block communicating clinical test results to patients. Accessing results by telephone can be difficult after daytime hours and at weekends. The process of laboratory test results communication in primary care needs to be improved by integrating test result management tools into patients’ electronic health records (EHR) and improving patient engagement in the process , .
How do patients use their results to augment the consultation and workflow?
Studies show that access to GP records and laboratory test results improves efficiency. Patients use their own data  to supplement and complement many stages of the consultation and to improve the safe delivery of care . Online laboratory test result access with informed consent before the test is ordered, and particularly with continuing long-term problems, reduce visits to the GP surgery by allowing patients more time to access and to understand their results and how they will impact on their future care. The patient spends less time with health professionals.
Earlier studies show patients’ comments on the use of their laboratory results and access to their personal medical records . Selected comments are recorded here to illustrate how patients can facilitate healthcare and care pathways through the use of their results and records (Table 4).
The clinician has a vital role in shared decision making. They help patients to understand why tests are being performed to make a diagnosis, rule out certain conditions or screen for conditions that patients may be at greater risk of. This role includes helping patients to understand what their results may mean and the consequences of a positive or negative result. This helps patients not only to determine whether they wish a test is done or not but also to know what to do when after the test is performed. Appropriate information sharing by the clinician may prevent patients from “Googling” for further information that might be incorrect and harmful.
The discussion between the clinician and patient about why the tests should be performed should ideally take place during the consultation and before the test is ordered. Information should be provided to patients and carers that they can refer to at the time of the test. Knowing that the results will be seen by both the patient and the clinician will help the laboratory to support the patient and the clinician. Seeing what the clinician has written about the consultation in the notes alongside the ordering of the test could help patients to understand the results and the urgency with which they should respond to the results. For instance, a seriously abnormal test result may warrant an urgent review whilst a normal test result could be filed with no need for follow-up. Thus, an active partnership between GP, patient and laboratory is critical to the precise and efficient use of the results communicated in real time.
Sharing the same data and information between the patient and clinician is an essential element of “The Partnership of Trust”. The clinician helps the patient to understand the data. This is not just about being “patient-centred”. Once the partnership and understanding has been created, it is imperative that tests should be done which maintains “The partnership of trust”.
Doctors and laboratories should not abdicate their responsibility to help the patient to understand their results. The clinician cannot assume that the patient will have checked trusted resources such as Lab Tests Online or understood the context in the consultation of grossly abnormal results or those that need their urgent attention. If patients do not understand the results, then they may do a “Google” search or equivalent which could lead them to the wrong conclusions. With understanding, patients will be better prepared when the clinician contacts them for any bad news and in determining next steps if such a responsible attitude and behaviour is encouraged.
We advocate responsible sharing of laboratory results and recognise that this requires more than just ordering the test. The extra time invested in helping patients to understand their test results does add costs but some of this can be recouped later with less patient anxiety, fewer patients needing a consultation on normal results and more time spent by clinicians on further management plans. Health systems might determine the cost for this extra work and practices should not be expected to absorb this cost especially the costs at the start of patient access to results when patients first sign up. The starting procedures are time consuming and reduce the take up and widespread acceptance of direct patient access to results.
Patients in developing countries already have immediate full access to their laboratory results, which they use for various purposes including self-management and seeking a second opinion . However, there is a paternalistic attitude and stance in providing patients access to their medical records including laboratory results in developed countries such as the UK  where patients do not have immediate access to their laboratory test results although patient access can now be made available more easily under the GDPR framework .
General practitioners (family doctors) need to fully inform patients about the reasons for laboratory tests, the normal and abnormal test results and the possible consequences during the consultation process and prior to ordering for laboratory tests. This practice can help patients in avoiding Googling for information that could be unauthentic and bear a risk of harmful disinformation. In many developed countries such as the UK, patients do not have full access to their medical records including laboratory test results and the practice of informing patients about the latest laboratory test results varies between GPs.
Online access to real-time laboratory results has the potential to improve patient safety and to increase GP capacity for consultations. Online access to laboratory results is a transformative technology. We propose changes in the traditional practice of communicating laboratory test results whereby normal or abnormal results are made available to patients as soon as the results become available at the laboratory (Figure 1).
The channels through which laboratory test results can be immediately available to patients including patients access to their online laboratory records as well as the communication of test results to patients include online tools such as personal email or mobile phone messaging . These channels may be preferable for many patients when compared to other channels such as a phone call and letters .
Online modes of communicating laboratory test results have different advantages to face to face communication, a postal letter and a landline phone call . It can be also noted that some forms of communication of test results – such as written biopsy results – may not be fully understood by some patients who may need clarification and explanation provided by the doctors . However, direct communication of and access to laboratory test results have been shown to reduce the burden of healthcare providers and to reduce the number of missed test results , .
More importantly, an active collaboration and partnership between patients, doctors and clinical laboratories is needed for the real time communication of laboratory tests results to both patients and doctor. Thus, helping in the correct use of the test results and making the whole process of healthcare much efficient and participatory, which is a core principal of the P4 (preventive, predictive, personalized and participatory) Health approach .
This paper was presented at the 2nd European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Strategic Conference held in Mannheim, Germany on 18–19 June 2018. The authors wish to thank to two anonymous reviewers and editor(s) for their comments/suggestions that have helped to improve the manuscript.
Information Commissioner’s Office. Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Version 04 June 2018 – 1.0.151. Cheshire, England. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protectionregulation-gdpr/.
Piva E, Sciacovelli L, Laposata M, Plebani M. Assessment of critical values policies in Italian institutions: comparison with the US situation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:461–8. PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Carlson RO, Amirahmadi F, Hernandez JS. A primer on the cost of quality for improvement of laboratory and pathology specimen processes. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;138:347–54. CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 2001. Google Scholar
British Medical Association. Workload Control in. General Practice. Ensuring Patient Safety. Through Demand Management. London, 2018. https://www.bma.org.uk//media/files/pdfs/employment%20advice/gp%20practices/service%20provision/work load-control-general-practice-mar2018.pdf?la=en.
Hobbs FR, Bankhead C, Mukhtar T, Stevens S, Perera-Salazar R, Holt T, et al. Clinical workload in UK primary care: a retrospective analysis of 100 million consultations in England, 2007–14. Lancet 2016;387:2323–30. CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Wright HJ, MacAdam DB. Clinical thinking and practice diagnosis and decision in patient care. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1979. Google Scholar
Stott NC, Davis RH. The exceptional potential in each primary care consultation. JR Coll Gen Pract 1979;29:201–5. Google Scholar
Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The consultation: an approach to learning and teaching: Oxford: OUP. 1984 Cited by Tidy, C. Consultation Analysis. 11 Dec 2014 https://patient.info/doctor/consultation-analysis.
Lundberg GD. Managing the patient-focused laboratory. Oradell, NJ: Medical Economics Co, 1975:9–42. Google Scholar
Litchfield I, Bentham L, Hill A, McManus RJ, Lilford R, Greenfield S. Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care in the UK: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:681–90. Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Litchfield I, Bentham L, Lilford R, McManus RJ, Hill A, Greenfield S. Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:691–9. CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Cunningham DE, McNab D, Bowie P. Quality and safety issues highlighted by patients in the handling of laboratory test results by general practices–a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:206. Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casalino LP, Dunham D, Chin MH, Bielang R, Kistner EO, Karrison TG, et al. Frequency of failure to inform patients of clinically significant outpatient test results. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1123–9. CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar
Elder NC, McEwen TR, Flach J, Gallimore J, Pallerla H. The management of test results in primary care: does an electronic medical record make a difference. Fam Med 2010;42:327–33. PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fitton C, Fitton R, Hannan A, Fisher B, Morgan L, Halsall D. The impact of patient record access on appointments and telephone calls in two English general practices: a population-based study. London J Prim Care 2014;6:8–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elder NC, Barney K. “But what does it mean for me?” Primary care patients’ communication preferences for test results notification. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012;38:168–76. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Car J, Atun R. Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;13:CD007456. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Karnieli-Miller O, Adler A, Merdler L, Rosenfeld L, Eidelman S. Written notification of test results: meanings, comprehension and implication on patients’ health behaviour. Patient Educ Couns 2009;76:341–7. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sagner M, McNeil A, Puska P, Auffray C, Price ND, Hood L, et al. The P4 health spectrum–a predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory continuum for promoting healthspan. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2017;59:506–21. PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lecture given by Dr. Richard Fitton at the 2nd EFLM Strategic Conference, 18–19 June 2018 in Mannheim (Germany).
About the article
Published Online: 2018-10-31
Published in Print: 2019-02-25
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved the submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: Authors declare no conflict of interest.