Improving test ordering in primary care: the added value of a small-group quality improvement strategy compared with classic feedback only.

PURPOSE: We wanted to evaluate the added value of small peer-group quality improvement meetings compared with simple feedback as a strategy to improve test-ordering behavior. Numbers of tests ordered by primary care physicians are increasing, and many of these tests seem to be unnecessary according to established, evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: We enrolled 194 primary care physicians from 27 local primary care practice groups in 5 health care regions (5 diagnostic centers). The study was a cluster randomized trial with randomization at the local physician group level. We evaluated an innovative, multifaceted strategy, combining written comparative feedback, group education on national guidelines, and social influence by peers in quality improvement sessions in small groups. The strategy was aimed at 3 specific clinical topics: cardiovascular issues, upper abdominal complaints, and lower abdominal complaints. The mean number of tests per physician per 6 months at baseline and the physicians' region were used as independent variables, and the mean number of tests per physician per 6 months was the dependent variable. RESULTS: The new strategy was executed in 13 primary care groups, whereas 14 groups received feedback only. For all 3 clinical topics, the decrease in mean total number of tests ordered by physicians in the intervention arm was far more substantial (on average 51 fewer tests per physician per half-year) than the decrease in mean number of tests ordered by physicians in the feedback arm (P = .005). Five tests considered to be inappropriate for the clinical problem of upper abdominal complaints decreased in the intervention arm, with physicians in the feedback arm ordering 13 more tests per 6 months (P = .002). Interdoctor variation in test ordering decreased more in the intervention arm. CONCLUSION: Compared with only disseminating comparative feedback reports to primary care physicians, the new strategy of involving peer interaction and social influence improved the physicians' test-ordering behavior. To be effective, feedback needs to be integrated in an interactive, educational environment.

Comparing cost effects of two quality strategies to improve test ordering in primary care: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs and cost reductions of an innovative strategy aimed at improving test ordering routines of primary care physicians, compared with a traditional strategy. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial with randomization at the local primary care physicians group level. SETTING: Primary care: local primary care physicians groups in five regions of the Netherlands with diagnostic centers. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven existing local primary care physicians groups, including 194 primary care physicians. INTERVENTION: The test ordering strategy was developed systematically, and combined feedback, education on guidelines, and quality improvement sessions in small groups. In regular quality meetings in local groups, primary care physicians discussed each others' test ordering behavior, related it to guidelines, and made individual and/or group plans for change. Thirteen groups engaged in the entire strategy (complete intervention arm), while 14 groups received feedback only (feedback arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Running costs, development costs, and research costs were calculated for the intervention period per primary care physician per 6 months. The mean costs of tests ordered per primary care physician per 6 months were assessed at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: The new strategy was found to cost 702.00, while the feedback strategy cost 58.00. When including running costs only, the intervention was found to cost 554.70, compared with 17.10 per primary care physician per 6 months in the feedback arm. When excluding opportunity costs for the physicians' time spent, the intervention was found to cost 92.70 per physician per 6 months in the complete intervention arm. The mean costs reduction that physicians in that arm achieved by reducing unnecessary tests was 144 larger per physician per 6 months than the physicians in the feedback arm (P = 0.048). CONCLUSION: On the basis of our findings, including the expected non-monetary benefits, we recommend further long-term effect and cost-effect studies on the implementation of the quality strategy.

Variation in test ordering behaviour of GPs: professional or context-related factors?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe GPs' test ordering behaviour, and to establish professional and context-related determinants of GPs' inclination to order tests. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out of 229 GPs in 40 local GP groups from five regions in The Netherlands of the combined number of 19 laboratory and eight imaging tests ordered by GPs, collected from five regional diagnostic centres. In a multivariable multilevel regression analysis, these data were linked with survey data on professional characteristics such as knowledge about and attitude towards test ordering, and with data on context-related factors such as practice type or experience with feedback on test ordering data. The main outcome measure was the percentage point differences associated with professional and context-related factors. RESULTS: The total median number of tests per GP per year was 998 (interquartile range 663-1500), with significant differences between the regions. The response to the survey was 97%. At the professional level, 'individual involvement in developing guidelines' (yes versus no), and at the context-related level 'group practice' (versus single-handed and two-person practices) and 'more than 1 year of experience working with a problem-oriented laboratory order form' (yes versus no) were associated with 27, 18 and 41% lower numbers of tests ordered, respectively. CONCLUSION: In addition to professional determinants, context-related factors appeared to be strongly associated with the numbers of tests ordered. Further studies on GPs' test ordering behaviour should include local and regional factors.