Association Between Health System Factors and Utilization of Routine Laboratory Tests in Clinical Teaching Units: a Cohort Analysis

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% (β 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.

Who's Accountable? Low-Value Care Received By Medicare Beneficiaries Outside Of Their Attributed Health Systems

Policy makers and payers increasingly hold health systems accountable for spending and quality for their attributed beneficiaries. Low-value care-medical services that offer little or no benefit and have the potential for harm in specific clinical scenarios-received outside of these systems could threaten success on both fronts. Using national Medicare data for fee-for-service beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older and attributed to 595 US health systems, we describe where and from whom they received forty low-value services during 2017-18 and identify factors associated with out-of-system receipt. Forty-three percent of low-value services received by attributed beneficiaries originated from out-of-system clinicians: 38 percent from specialists, 4 percent from primary care physicians, and 1 percent from advanced practice clinicians. Recipients of low-value care were more likely to obtain that care out of system if age 75 or older (versus ages 65-74), male (versus female), non-Hispanic White (versus other races or ethnicities), rural dwelling (versus metropolitan dwelling), more medically complex, or experiencing lower continuity of care. However, out-of-system service receipt was not associated with recipients' health systems' accountable care organization status. Health systems might improve quality and reduce spending for their attributed beneficiaries by addressing out-of-system receipt of low-value care-for example, by improving continuity.

Association between physician continuity of care and patient outcomes in clinical teaching units: a cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospital-based clinical teaching units (CTUs) are supervised by rotating attending physicians. Physician hand-offs in other contexts have been associated with worse patient outcomes, presumably through communication gaps. We aimed to determine the association between attending physician hand-offs on CTUs and patient outcomes including escalation of care, readmission and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicentre cohort study using data from 3 tertiary care hospitals in Calgary between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2017. We included hospital admissions in the top 10 case-mix groups. Our exposure variable was the number of attending physicians seen by a patient. Outcome measures were admission to intensive care unit (ICU); inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality; and 7- and 30-day readmission rate. We used multivariable regression statistical models adjusted for patient age, sex, length of stay, Charlson Comorbidity Index, case-mix groups, senior resident presence, team handovers and team transfers.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 4324 unique patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of admission to ICU, inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality, and 7- and 30-day readmission rates among 1 or 2 physicians. However, we noted a significant increase in 30-day readmission rate (IRR 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.78) in patients who had 3 or more attending physicians compared with those who had 1 attending physician.

INTERPRETATION

We found that 2 or more physician hand-offs on CTUs had a modestly greater association with patient readmission at 30 days. More research is needed to explore this finding and to evaluate associated patient and resource outcomes with physician hand-offs.