The usefulness of implementing minimum retest intervals in reducing inappropriate laboratory test requests in a Dutch hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate use of laboratory testing remains a challenging problem worldwide. Minimum retest intervals (MRI) are used to reduce inappropriate laboratory testing. However, their effectiveness and the usefulness in reducing inappropriate laboratory testing is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of broadly implemented MRIs as a means of reducing inappropriate laboratory test requests. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in a general care and teaching hospital in the Netherlands, where MRI alerts have been implemented as standard care since June 7th 2017. Clinical chemistry test orders in adult internal medicine patients placed between July 13th 2017 and December 31st 2019 were included. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of MRIs, expressed as percentages of tests ordered and barred as a result of MRIs. RESULTS: Of a total of 218,511 test requests, 4,159 (1.90%) got an MRI alert. These MRIs were overruled by physicians in 21.76% of the cases. As a result of implementing MRIs, 3,254 (1.49%) tests were barred. The financial savings for the department of internal medicine directly related to the included barred laboratory tests during this period were 11,880 euros on a total amount of 636,598 euros for all performed tests. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of laboratory tests are barred after implementation of MRIs, with a limited impact on the annual costs. However, MRIs provide a continuous reminder to focus on appropriate testing and the effectiveness of MRIs is potentially higher than described in this study.

Association of a Multifaceted Intervention With Ordering of Unnecessary Laboratory Tests Among Caregivers in Internal Medicine Departments.

Importance: Inappropriate use of laboratory testing is a challenging problem. Estimated overuse rates of approximately 20% have been reported. Effective, sustainable solutions to stimulate optimal use are needed. Objective: To determine the association of a multifaceted intervention with laboratory test volume. Design, Setting, and Participants: A before-after quality improvement study was performed between August 1, 2016, and April 30, 2018, in the internal medicine departments of 4 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Data on laboratory order volumes from 19 comparable hospitals were used as controls. The participants were clinicians ordering laboratory tests. Interventions: The intervention included creating awareness through education and feedback, intensified supervision of residents, and changes in order entry systems. Interventions were performed by local project teams and guided by a central project team during a 6-month period. Sustainability was investigated during an 8-month follow-up period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in slope for laboratory test volume. Secondary outcomes were change in slope for laboratory expenditure, order volumes and expenditure for other diagnostic procedures, and clinical outcomes. Data were collected on duration of hospital stay, rate of repeated outpatient visits, 30-day readmission rate, and rate of unexpected prolonged duration of hospital stay for patients admitted for pneumonia. Results: The numbers of internists and residents ordering tests in hospitals 1 to 4 were 16 and 30, 18 and 20, 13 and 17, and 21 and 60, respectively. Statistically significant changes in slope for laboratory test volume per patient contact were found at hospital 1 (change in slope, -1.55; 95% CI, -1.98 to -1.11; P < .001), hospital 3 (change in slope, -0.74; 95% CI, -1.42 to -0.07; P = .03), and hospital 4 (change in slope, -2.18; 95% CI, -3.27 to -1.08; P < .001). At hospital 2, the change in slope was not statistically significant (-0.34; 95% CI, -2.27 to 1.58; P = .73). Laboratory test volume per patient contact decreased by 11.4%, whereas the volume increased by 2.4% in 19 comparable hospitals. Statistically significant changes in slopes for laboratory costs and volumes and costs for other diagnostic procedures were also observed. Clinical outcomes were not associated with negative changes. Important facilitators were education, continuous attention for overuse, feedback, and residents' involvement. Important barriers were difficulties in data retrieval, difficulty in incorporation of principles in daily practice, and high resident turnover. Conclusions and relevance: A set of interventions aimed at changing caregivers' mindset was associated with a reduction in the laboratory test volume in all departments, whereas the volume increased in comparable hospitals in the Netherlands. This study provides a framework for nationwide implementation of interventions to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing.

A Multicenter Before-After Study on Reducing Unnecessary Diagnostics by Changing the Attitude of Caregivers: Protocol for the RODEO Project.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use of diagnostic laboratory tests is challenging, and estimates of 20% for overutilization and 45% for underutilization have been reported. Introducing effective and sustainable solutions to stimulate optimal use of laboratory testing in clinical practice is a challenge. A recent pilot study from our group, focusing on increasing the awareness about appropriate laboratory testing with the aim of changing the mindset of health care workers, has shown promising results. In this project, we aim to extend this multistep intervention to the internal medicine departments of 4 large Dutch hospitals. We aim to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing by 5%. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective is to determine the effect of our intervention on diagnostic laboratory test order volume. Our secondary objectives are to determine the effect of our intervention on laboratory expenditure and order volumes, expenditures for other diagnostic modalities, and clinical patient outcomes. We will also analyze the barriers and facilitators for deimplementation of unnecessary laboratory testing. METHODS: The main interventions of this before-after study will be an intensified supervision of residents by experienced physicians regarding test ordering, creating awareness through education and monthly feedback on ordering patterns, and changes in (computerized) order entry systems. RESULTS: At the time of publication of this protocol, the project is in the phase of data collection. We expect to present data on reduction early in the fourth quarter of 2018. CONCLUSIONS: In this project, we aim to reduce the unnecessary diagnostic testing in the internal medicine departments of 4 teaching hospitals. Although the main interventions will be similar, each clinic is given the opportunity to focus on the specific facets of the interventions as deemed useful according to the local situation. If effective, the study provides a framework for a nationwide initiative for reducing inappropriate laboratory testing. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2106/10473.

Risk factors for medication errors at admission in preoperatively screened patients.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative screening (POS) may help to reduce medication errors at admission (MEA). However, due to the time window between POS and hospital admission, unintentional medication discrepancies may still occur and thus a second medication reconciliation at hospital admission can be necessary. Insight into potential risk factors associated with these discrepancies would be helpful to focus the second medication reconciliation on high-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of POS patients with MEA and to identify risk factors for MEA. METHODS: This single-centre observational cross-sectional study included elective surgical patients between October 26 and December 18, 2015. Main exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years and daycare admissions. Medication reconciliation took place at the POS and was repeated within 30 hours of admission. Unintended discrepancies between the first and second medication reconciliation were defined as MEA. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more MEA. The association of this outcome with potential risk factors was analysed using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 183 included patients, 60 (32.8%) patients had at least one MEA. In a multivariate model, the number of medications at POS (adjusted odds ratio 1.16 [95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.30]) and respiratory disease (4.25 [1.52-11.83]) were significantly associated with MEA. CONCLUSION: In one-third of preoperatively screened patients, an MEA was found. The number of medications and respiratory comorbidities are risk factors for MEA in preoperatively screened patients.

Therapeutic reasoning: from hiatus to hypothetical model.

Rationale Extensive research has been conducted on clinical reasoning to gain better understanding of this process. Clinical reasoning has been defined as the process of thinking critically about the diagnosis and patient management. However, most research has focused on the process of diagnostic reasoning. Because of the lack of understanding regarding therapeutic reasoning, education in patient management decisions lacks a solid theoretical basis. Aims and objective To improve medical education, training and refresher courses with regard to therapeutic decision making. Methods A search on the literature about clinical reasoning has been conducted. Based on this literature a hypothetical model of therapeutic reasoning is developed. Results It is assumed on the literature about diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning that after the diagnosis has been formulated, the process of determining the therapy is initiated by a concept called the therapy script. Patient cases unconsciously elicit such scripts and they consist of relevant treatments, knowledge and clinical experiences. Analytical and non-analytical processes determine the final choice of therapy. Subsequently, these processes adapt the therapy script continuously. Conclusions A hypothetical model of therapeutic reasoning has been developed in order to improve medical education, training and refresher courses with regard to therapeutic decision making. Future research should empirically test the validity of this hypothetical model in different phases of the medical education continuum.