ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine if general practitioners can diagnose the cause of anemia, based on the requested laboratory tests. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHOD: The research population consisted of 20.004 adult patients with established anemia, who had blood samples analyzed by Atalmedial in 2019. The cause of anemia was found when criteria based on the NHG-standard were met. We considered the NHG-guideline to be followed when hemoglobin was requested in the first diagnostic request and when the correct combination of blood tests was requested in the second diagnostic request. Descriptive statistics and multilevel regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: A possible cause of anemia has been found in 38,7% of the patients within two diagnostic requests, regardless of the adherence to the NHG-guideline. The chance of finding a cause of anemia was smaller in men than women of the same age, whereas the chance was highest in women over the age of 80 and between 18 and 44. The NHG-guideline for anemia was followed in 11.794 (59%) of the patients in the first diagnostic request. 19,3% (11,4% of total) of these patients also had a second diagnostic request. In 10,4% (1,2% of total) of these patients, the NHG-guideline was adhered to in the second diagnostic request. CONCLUSION: A cause of anemia is, based on laboratory tests, often not diagnosed in daily practice in the primary care. The reason for this is insufficient laboratory follow-up after initial testing when no cause of anemia is found. The NHG-guideline for anemia is poorly adhered to.
Subject(s)
Anemia , General Practitioners , Adult , Male , Humans , Female , Anemia/diagnosis , Anemia/etiology , Hemoglobins , Hematologic Tests , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Dutch guideline algorithm for the analysis of anaemia in patients of general practitioners (GPs) was programmed in a Clinical Decision Support system (CDS-anaemia) to support the process of diagnosing the cause of anaemia in the laboratory. This study investigates the diagnostic yield of the automated anaemia algorithm compared to that of the manual work up by the GP. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study consisted of 2697 people ≥18 years. Anaemia was defined according to the Dutch College of General Practitioners (DCGP) guideline. Causes of anaemia were based on the DCGP guidelines with the corresponding blood tests. The number of blood tests and causes of anaemia were measured in two separate periods in both the (CDS-anaemia) pilot group and a control group in which routine care was provided. RESULTS: Patients from GPs supported by CDS-anaemia had higher chances of having more anaemia-related blood tests being performed. This resulted in finding significantly more causes of anaemia in the pilot group compared to the control group with respect to iron deficiency (resp. 31.3% vs 14.5%), possible iron deficiency (resp. 11.4% vs 2.8%), iron deficiency in acute phase (2.6% vs 0.5%), chronic disease/infection/inflammation (23.5% vs 1.9%), vitamin B12 deficiency (4.5% vs 1.9%), possible vitamin B12 deficiency (16.8% vs 8.7%), folate deficiency (3.3% vs 0.9%) and possible bone marrow disorder (3.8% vs 0.0%); p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that an automated-algorithm support can effectively aid in the diagnostic work-up of anaemia in primary care to find more causes of anaemia.
