Technology-Enabled Outreach to Patients Taking High-Risk Medications Reduces a Quality Gap in Completion of Clinical Laboratory Testing.

Clinical laboratory quality improvement (QI) efforts can include population test utilization. The authors used a health care organization's Medical Data Warehouse (MDW) to characterize a gap in guideline-concordant laboratory testing recommended for safe use of antirheumatic agents, then tested the effectiveness of laboratory-led, technology-enabled outreach to patients at reducing this gap. Data linkages available through the Kaiser Permanente Colorado MDW and electronic health record were used to identify ambulatory adults taking antirheumatic agents who were due/overdue for alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), complete blood count (CBC), or serum creatinine (SCr) testing. Outreach was implemented using an interactive voice response system to send patients text or phone call reminders. Interrupted time series analysis was used to estimate reminder effectiveness. Rates of guideline-concordant testing and testing timeliness in baseline vs. intervention periods were determined using generalized linear models for repeated measures. Results revealed a decrease in percentage of 3763 patients taking antirheumatic agents due/overdue for testing at any given time: baseline 24.3% vs. intervention 17.5% (P < 0.001). Among 3205 patients taking conventional antirheumatic agents, concordance for all ALT testing was baseline 52.8% vs. intervention 65.4% (P < 0.001) among patients chronically using these agents and baseline 20.6% vs. intervention 26.1% (P < 0.001) among patients newly starting these agents. The 95th percentiles for days to ALT testing were baseline 149 vs. intervention 117 among chronic users and baseline 134 vs. intervention 92 among new starts. AST, CBC, and SCr findings were similar. Technology-enabled outreach reminding patients to obtain laboratory testing improves health care system outcomes.

Guidelines for safe work practices in human and animal medical diagnostic laboratories. Recommendations of a CDC-convened, Biosafety Blue Ribbon Panel.

Prevention of injuries and occupational infections in U.S. laboratories has been a concern for many years. CDC and the National Institutes of Health addressed the topic in their publication Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories, now in its 5th edition (BMBL-5). BMBL-5, however, was not designed to address the day-to-day operations of diagnostic laboratories in human and animal medicine. In 2008, CDC convened a Blue Ribbon Panel of laboratory representatives from a variety of agencies, laboratory organizations, and facilities to review laboratory biosafety in diagnostic laboratories. The members of this panel recommended that biosafety guidelines be developed to address the unique operational needs of the diagnostic laboratory community and that they be science based and made available broadly. These guidelines promote a culture of safety and include recommendations that supplement BMBL-5 by addressing the unique needs of the diagnostic laboratory. They are not requirements but recommendations that represent current science and sound judgment that can foster a safe working environment for all laboratorians. Throughout these guidelines, quality laboratory science is reinforced by a common-sense approach to biosafety in day-to-day activities. Because many of the same diagnostic techniques are used in human and animal diagnostic laboratories, the text is presented with this in mind. All functions of the human and animal diagnostic laboratory--microbiology, chemistry, hematology, and pathology with autopsy and necropsy guidance--are addressed. A specific section for veterinary diagnostic laboratories addresses the veterinary issues not shared by other human laboratory departments. Recommendations for all laboratories include use of Class IIA2 biological safety cabinets that are inspected annually; frequent hand washing; use of appropriate disinfectants, including 1:10 dilutions of household bleach; dependence on risk assessments for many activities; development of written safety protocols that address the risks of chemicals in the laboratory; the need for negative airflow into the laboratory; areas of the laboratory in which use of gloves is optional or is recommended; and the national need for a central site for surveillance and nonpunitive reporting of laboratory incidents/exposures, injuries, and infections.