Measuring and Improving the Safety of Test Result Follow-Up

February 22, 2024 updated by: VA Office of Research and Development

Improving communication is foundational to improving patient safety. Electronic health records (EHRs) can improve communication, but also introduce unique vulnerabilities. Failure to follow-up abnormal test results (missed results) is a key preventable factor in diagnosis and treatment delays in the Veteran's Health Administration (VHA) and often involves EHR-based communication breakdowns. Effective methods are needed to detect diagnostic delays and intervene appropriately. Manual techniques to detect care delays, such as spontaneous reporting and random chart reviews, have limited effectiveness, due in part to bias and lack of provider awareness of delays. They are also inefficient and cost-prohibitive when applied to large numbers of patients.

Diagnostic errors are considered harder to tackle, in part because they are difficult to measure. Rigorous measurement of diagnostic safety is essential and should be prioritized given the increasing amount of electronically available data. To create an effective measurement and learning program researchers must (1) ensure teams know how to take actionable steps on data and have assistance in doing so and (2) prioritize diagnostic safety at the organizational level by securing commitment from local VA leadership and clinical operations personnel. This will ensure that safety measurement will translate into action. The proposed study focuses on creating a novel program to develop and evaluate multifaceted socio-technical tools and strategies to help prevent, detect, mitigate, and ameliorate breakdowns in EHR-based communication that often lead to "missed" test results in the VHA.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

The goal of this study is to develop and evaluate a new program for surveillance and improvement of test results-related diagnostic safety. The investigators will use a multifaceted measurement approach, the Virtual Breakthrough Series (VBTS) model, to account for processes of care and work systems issues as well as outcomes and implement change.

This is for Aim 2 of the study which was approved under Institutional Review Board (IRB) Protocol Number: H-45450. This study will implement the Change Package which was developed in the research team's recent work (Aim1, prior IRB Protocol Number: H-43661 from October 2018 - September 2019) via Virtual Breakthrough Series using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized control trial. The study design involves random and sequential crossover of clusters from control to intervention until all clusters are exposed. A Change Package is a catalogue of evidence-based practices, change concepts, and action steps/strategies that help guide improvement efforts. VBTS involves monthly learning sessions where participants are provided with education/review of a specific component of a Change Package along with reviewing de-identified data, and having a facilitated discussion about successes, challenges, and implementation progress related to needed changes. The intervention will consist of coached implementation of the SAFER Change Package using a VBTS Collaborative, plus automated near real-time surveillance data on potentially missed test results through monthly data extraction within the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) platform.

The study's outcome measures will be the rate of missed test results, determined through random manual medical record review conducted nationally as part of the VHA performance-measurement system, known as the External Peer Review Program (EPRP) which has been collecting facility-level data on timeliness of communication of test results to patients within the time periods specified by VHA Directive 1088, as well as automated indicators (Triggers) of missed test results. Electronic surveillance will be made possible through the use of the research team's trigger algorithms which will determine the number of patients potentially lost to follow-up for the specified condition based on a previously validated timeframe. The triggers use the national EHR data warehouse (VINCI/CDW) to identify patients at risk for delays or patients who may have fallen through the cracks. For data surveillance, the investigators will apply five triggers to the medical record data contained within the CDW for the participating facilities during the Intervention Phase along with evaluating EPRP data. The research team hypothesizes there will be fewer missed test results in participating sites during the SAFER TRACKS Intervention as compared to during the pre-intervention period.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
46

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Texas
      • Houston, Texas, United States, 77030
        • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX
    • Vermont
      • White River Junction, Vermont, United States, 05009-0001
        • White River Junction VA Medical Center, White River Junction, VT

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Medical records identified via CDW which fall under the EPRP measures (Fecal Occult Blood Test FOBT)/Fecal Immunohistochemical Test (FIT), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV), Mammogram, alpha feto protein (AFP), dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) Scan, Pap/ human papillomavirus (HPV), Chest X-ray, and Chest CT)
  • Medical records containing clinical findings suspicious for breast cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and colorectal cancer (CRC)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Medical records that don't contain any tests, procedures, or appointments that need to be followed up on

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: SAFER TRACKS Intervention
Each cluster starts receiving the intervention in sequence per cluster randomized control trial designs. Each cluster will participate in attending monthly coaching calls and compare their data on test results from pre-intervention to receiving the intervention.
Behavioral: SAFER TRACKS Intervention
SAFER Change Package delivered using a Virtual Breakthrough Series [VBTS] Collaborative supplemented with automated surveillance data on test results.
No Intervention: Non-intervention period
When the cluster is not in active intervention, they are in the non-intervention period. The amount of time that each site contributes to the intervention depends on which cluster they belong to.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Trigger Outcome
Time Frame: 32 months

Percentage of missed test results determined by electronic indicators. The percentage of test results with timely follow up was calculated for each participating site, out of all abnormal tests at that site.

Reporting measure type: Percentage of tests with timely follow-up across all sites.
32 months
External Peer Review Program (EPRP) Outcome
Time Frame: 32 months
Percentage of patients notified of actionable test results within seven days via EPRP
32 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
VA Office of Research and Development

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Baylor College of Medicine
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center
Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Hardeep Singh, MD MPH, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
October 1, 2018

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
April 1, 2022

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
September 30, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
November 14, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
November 14, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
November 18, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
August 6, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
February 22, 2024

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
February 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • IIR 17-127
  • H-45450 (Other Identifier: Baylor College of Medicine)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

No plans to share individual site data.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Breast Cancer

Clinical Trials on SAFER TRACKS Intervention

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings