Practical motives are prominent in test-ordering in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory test ordering under time pressure may impact test-ordering behavior. METHODS: To investigate the test-ordering behavior of doctors working under such pressure, we designed a questionnaire for trainees and staff in the Emergency Department (ED). This questionnaire addressed topics such as necessity of requested tests, time spent on ordering, costs and availability of tests, and the time of the day. We hypothesized that ordering behavior would be guided predominantly by the medical need of tests and aimed at identifying practical motives that also have an effect. RESULTS: Remarkably, two-third of the respondents (67%) admitted that tests were ordered that would not influence treatment policy directly and 48% of the doctors stated that tests were ordered that do not impact treatment at all. The frequency of such orders was "sometimes" and "frequent" in a 50:50 ratio. Interestingly, tests that could prove relevant at a later stage are often ordered simultaneously to reduce burden on the patient. None of the respondents spent more than 3 min on the ordering process and very few (8%) desired more time for ordering. Most respondents (81%) declared to have limited knowledge of the costs of laboratory tests. A random survey covering four tests confirmed this. Generally, turnaround time did influence ordering behavior while time of the day did not. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, doctors in an ED - besides first of all medical motives - heavily exploit practical (non-medical) reasoning for laboratory test ordering, e.g. taking availability of tests into account and ordering non-immediate tests.

Self-referrals in a Dutch Emergency Department: how appropriate are they?

OBJECTIVE: Self-referred visits account for an average of 30% of all Emergency Department (ED) visits in the Netherlands. Some of these are considered inappropriate, because patients receive care that a GP can provide. Worldwide, studies have used various methods to determine the proportion of inappropriate visits by self-referred patients, resulting in diverging percentages. The aim of this study was to find a reliable percentage of appropriate visits to the ED by self-referred patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: This observational, prospective study was performed in the ED of a hospital in the Netherlands. Data were collected on all self-referred patients in four separate months over 1 year. The appropriateness of an ED visit was determined at two time points: first, after primary assessment of the patient, using predefined criteria, and second the moment the patient left the ED, on the basis of the diagnosis and treatment received. Finally, the perspective of the patients was taken into account using a questionnaire. RESULTS: In 4 months 3196 self-referred patients were included. In all, 1862 (58.8%) visits were classified as appropriate according to the predefined criteria. When the second time point was taken into consideration, 48.1% of the patients had a secondary care diagnosis and/or needed secondary care treatment, classifying their visits as appropriate. According to the opinion of the patients 76.7% classified their visit as appropriate. CONCLUSION: The percentage of appropriate ED visits by self-referred patients in the Netherlands ranges from 48.1 to 58.8%, as determined using two different methods.

A survey of doctors reveals that few laboratory tests are of primary importance at the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory tests in hospitals are among the most important diagnostic tools for medical decision making at the Emergency Department. They are often ordered as part of extended test panels, which, although helpful and convenient for doctors, may lead to overuse of tests and overdiagnosis. To improve the ordering process, we investigated which laboratory tests are essential for optimal decision making at the Emergency Department of our hospital. METHODS: Forty-nine doctors regularly involved with the Emergency Department filled in a questionnaire asking for their opinions on laboratory test ordering and use. RESULTS: A limited number of laboratory tests are considered indispensable for the Emergency Department: CRP and leukocytes, urea and creatinin, sodium and potassium, and haemoglobin. Glucose and troponin should probably also be included in this list, but were not mentioned as glucose is measured using portable point-of-care devices in our hospital, while cardiac patients are referred directly to the cardiac care unit. CONCLUSIONS: Only a limited number of laboratory tests are essential for early medical decision making at the Emergency Department. Ordering facilities should be arranged such that these tests are permanently available, easy to order, and performed with short turnaround times. Test panels for the ED should incorporate these essential tests, with additional other tests so as to prevent essential tests from being forgotten, maintain convenience for doctors and promote sensible and effective use of diagnostic testing. The outcome of these conflicting aims is a compromise, as is discussed.