Reducing Unnecessary Phlebotomy Testing Using a Clinical Decision Support System.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing unnecessary tests reduces costs without compromising quality. We report here the effectiveness of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) on reducing unnecessary type and screen tests and describe, estimated costs, and unnecessary provider ordering. METHODS: We used a pretest posttest design to examine unnecessary type and screen tests 3 months before and after CDSS implementation in a large academic medical center. The clinical decision support system appears when the test order is initiated and indicates when the last test was ordered and expires. Cost savings was estimated using time-driven activity-based costing. Provider ordering before and after the CDSS was described. RESULTS: There were 26,206 preintervention and 25,053 postintervention specimens. Significantly fewer unnecessary type and screen tests were ordered after the intervention (12.3%, n = 3,073) than before (14.1%, n = 3,691; p < .001) representing a 12.8% overall reduction and producing an estimated yearly savings of $142,612. Physicians had the largest weighted percentage of unnecessary orders (31.5%) followed by physician assistants (28.5%) and advanced practice nurses (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The CDSS reduced unnecessary type and screen tests and annual costs. Additional interventions directed at providers are recommended. The clinical decision support system can be used to guide all providers to make judicious decisions at the time of care.

Assessment of a quality improvement intervention to improve the consistency of total body surface area burn estimates between referring facilities and a pediatric burn center.

BACKGROUND: Burns are a significant source of pediatric morbidity and frequently result in transfer of care to a pediatric burn center. Data suggest that referring facilities often overestimate the total body surface area (%TBSA) of burns in comparison to the subsequent assessment at the pediatric burn center. Such discrepancies may trigger inappropriately aggressive interventions with potential for patient harm. Our baseline assessment of data from 106 patients transferred to our pediatric burn center over a one-year period showed that 59/106 (56%) patients had a %TBSA recorded at the time of transfer and 18/59 (31%) had clinically significant differences (>5% difference) in estimates between the referring facility and the pediatric burn center. METHODS: Informed by this clinical audit and a root cause analysis, we implemented practices to enhance consistency of clinical assessments between referring facilities and our pediatric burn center. These practices included the use of a common clinical assessment instrument (a standardized Lund and Browder form) that was integrated into the interfacility transfer process as well as educational outreach at referring facilities for providers who treat children with burns, prioritizing facilities with the highest number of discrepancies. RESULTS: Follow up data was reviewed 16-23 months after initiating the intervention. Cumulatively, we found significant improvement in the proportion of patients with %TBSA recorded (94% vs 56%, p < 0.001) that achieved our goal to exceed 90% and a reduction in clinically significant discrepancies that exceeded our goal of 15% (10% vs 31%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Referring facilities often overestimate the %TBSA in comparison to the subsequent assessment at the pediatric burn center. The consistency of the %TBSA estimates can be improved by interventions that utilize the sharing of a common clinical assessment instrument and standardization of the transfer intake process.

One-unit compared to two-unit platelet transfusions for adult oncology outpatients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Platelet dosing has been studied in adult oncology inpatients, but there is almost no published evidence to guide platelet dosing for adult outpatients. We evaluated transfusion indices after 1 unit and 2 unit apheresis platelet transfusions at our hospital to determine whether a benefit to 2-unit transfusions could be detected. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all adult oncology patients who received an outpatient platelet transfusion over a 16-month period (July 2016-November 2017). Pre- and post-transfusion platelet count, and chronology of subsequent platelet transfusions were compared. RESULTS: A total of 8467 platelet transfusions were administered to 602 patients during the study period. 59·8% of patients (n = 360) were transfused interchangeably with one or two platelets throughout the study period. The primary study population were comprised of these patients. On average, a 2-unit platelet transfusions resulted in a higher immediate post-transfusion platelet count (43 vs. 37 x 103 /µl, P < 0·001) and a lower corrected count increment (9707 vs. 14 060, P < 0·001). Transfusion with 2 platelets did not increase the number of days between outpatient transfusions (median; 4 vs. 4, P = 0·959) or the platelet count at the time of next transfusion (11 vs. 11 x 103 /µl, P = 0·147). CONCLUSION: Among adult, oncology outpatients that were transfused interchangeably with one or two units of platelets, transfusion with two platelets did not offer a durable improvement in platelet count or impact the subsequent transfusion schedule.

Preparing enhanced recovery after surgery for implementation in pediatric populations.

Standardization in perioperative care has led to major improvements in surgical outcomes during the last two decades. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are one example of a clinical pathway impacting both surgical outcomes and efficiency of care, but these programs have not yet been widely adapted for surgery in children. In adults, ERAS pathways have been shown to reduce length of stay, reduce complication rates, and improve patient satisfaction. These pathways improve outcomes through standardization of existing evidence-based best practices. Currently, the direct evidence for adapting ERAS pathways to pediatric surgery patients is limited. Challenges for implementation of ERAS programs for children include lack of direct translatability of adult evidence as well as varying levels acceptability of ERAS principles among pediatric providers and patients' families. We describe our newly implemented ERAS program for pediatric colorectal surgery patients in an era of limited direct evidence and discuss what further issues need to be addressed for broader implementation of pediatric ERAS pathways. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5.