Repurposing the Ordering of Routine Laboratory Tests in Hospitalised Medical Patients (RePORT): results of a cluster randomised stepped-wedge quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value use of laboratory tests is a global challenge. Our objective was to evaluate an intervention bundle to reduce repetitive use of routine laboratory testing in hospitalised patients. METHODS: We used a stepped-wedge design to implement an intervention bundle across eight medical units. Our intervention included educational tools and social comparison reports followed by peer-facilitated report discussion sessions. The study spanned October 2020-June 2021, divided into control, feasibility testing, intervention and a follow-up period. The primary outcomes were the number and costs of routine laboratory tests ordered per patient-day. We used generalised linear mixed models, and analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: We included a total of 125 854 patient-days. Patient groups were similar in age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and length of stay during the control, intervention and follow-up periods. From the control to the follow-up period, there was a 14% (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92) overall reduction in ordering of routine tests with the intervention, along with a 14% (ß coefficient=-0.14, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.21) reduction in costs of routine testing. This amounted to a total cost savings of $C1.15 per patient-day. There was also a 15% (IRR=0.85, 95% CI 0.79, 0.92) reduction in ordering of all common tests with the intervention and a 20% (IRR=1.20, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.30) increase in routine test-free patient-days. No worsening was noted in patient safety endpoints with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention bundle using education and facilitated multilevel social comparison was associated with a safe and effective reduction in use of routine daily laboratory testing in hospitals. Further research is needed to understand how system-level interventions may increase this effect and which intervention elements are necessary to sustain results.

Which outcomes are most important to measure in patients with COVID-19 and how and when should these be measured? Development of an international standard set of outcomes measures for clinical use in patients with COVID-19: a report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) COVID-19 Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread morbidity and mortality with the consequences expected to be felt for many years. Significant variation exists in the care even of similar patients with COVID-19, including treatment practices within and between institutions. Outcome measures vary among clinical trials on the same therapies. Understanding which therapies are of most value is not possible unless consensus can be reached on which outcomes are most important to measure. Furthermore, consensus on the most important outcomes may enable patients to monitor and track their care, and may help providers to improve the care they offer through quality improvement. To develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes for clinical care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a working group (WG) of 28 volunteers, including health professionals, patients and patient representatives. DESIGN: A list of outcomes important to patients and professionals was generated from a systematic review of the published literature using the MEDLINE database, from review of outcomes being measured in ongoing clinical trials, from a survey distributed to patients and patient networks, and from previously published ICHOM standard sets in other disease areas. Using an online-modified Delphi process, the WG selected outcomes of greatest importance. RESULTS: The outcomes considered by the WG to be most important were selected and categorised into five domains: (1) functional status and quality of life, (2) mental functioning, (3) social functioning, (4) clinical outcomes and (5) symptoms. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, clinical factors and treatment-related factors. CONCLUSION: Implementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of care to patients with COVID-19. Their consistent definition and collection could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research.

The Impact of Comorbidities on Calgary Hospital Utilization in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) are chronic conditions with high acute care utilization. Disease-specific order sets were developed for patients with COPD or HF in Calgary to reduce total days in hospital for this population of patients. However, many patients have comorbidities which may contribute to hospital utilization; thus, disease-specific order sets may not be an optimal solution to reduce overall acute care utilization. Methods Inpatient data on Calgary hospitalizations for COPD or HF between April 1, 2017 - March 31, 2019 and associated diagnoses were identified. Outcomes included total days in hospital and length of stay for COPD and HF patients stratified by number of comorbidities. Results Total days in hospital increased with the number of comorbidities for both conditions. During the study period, 131 patients with COPD and no comorbidities had a median length of stay of three days (IQR: 3) compared to 3,911 COPD patients with one to five comorbidities with a median length of stay of seven days (IQR: 9). There were 47 patients with HF and no comorbidities with a median length of stay of four days (IQR: 5) compared to 6,273 HF patients with one to five comorbidities with a median length of stay of nine days (IQR: 12). Common comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and acute renal failure. COPD and HF are frequently comorbid.  Conclusions Total days in hospital for patients with COPD or HF is positively correlated with the number of comorbidities. COPD or HF patients with between one to five comorbidities (compared to those with no comorbidities, and those with more than five comorbidities) represent the majority of total days in hospital, and the majority of patients. This highlights the importance of focusing on patients with comorbidities in efforts to reduce hospital utilization, and suggests that concurrent management of commonly occurring comorbidities for HF and COPD patients may be necessary to achieve this goal.

Improving patient access at a movement disorder clinic by participating in a Process Improvement Program.

Our multi-disciplinary neurology team were dissatisfied with long access times for consultation for new referrals. We participated in a rapid process improvement workshop and a structured improvement process. Over a six-month period we were able to reduce our access time for initial appointment for patients with suspected movement disorders from 133 to 20 days. We implemented a 'carousel' multi-disciplinary appointment and a standardised clinic form that improved the flow of patients and that we estimate will save 150 hours of physician time and 320 hours of administrative time per year.

Will benchmarking ICUs improve outcome?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this article we discuss our experiences benchmarking eight ICUs in The Netherlands. Benchmarks must be carefully designed and implemented to generate meaningful results. We define prerequisites that we have identified for successful benchmarking and discuss the development, implementation and results of ICU benchmarks that we have completed. RECENT FINDINGS: Previous articles have discussed benchmarking ICUs, but there are still few studies of significant size and appropriate design that measure the impact of benchmarking on outcomes. Perhaps the most well known, and still best example of a benchmarking study designed to measure outcome improvements is the work of Pronovost et al. in Michigan ICUs. SUMMARY: Benchmarking is an increasingly common activity, however it is difficult to prove that benchmarks result in improved outcomes. Concurrent with our benchmarking activities the Standardized Mortality Ratio in Dutch ICUs has decreased. We have been able to show that larger ICUs in our benchmarks generally had improved outcomes despite a higher average patient severity. Quality assurance in healthcare is maturing and benchmarks will become an increasingly useful way of comparing performance between institutions.