Multipronged strategy to reduce routine-priority blood testing in intensive care unit patients

A Canadian survey of perceptions and practices related to ordering of blood tests in the intensive care unit

PURPOSE

The ordering of routine blood test panels in advance is common in intensive care units (ICUs), with limited consideration of the pretest probability of finding abnormalities. This practice contributes to anemia, false positive results, and health care costs. We sought to understand practices and attitudes of Canadian adult intensivists regarding ordering of blood tests in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide Canadian cross-sectional survey consisting of 15 questions assessing three domains (global perceptions, test ordering, daily practice), plus 11 demographic questions. The target sample was one intensivist per adult ICU in Canada. We summarized responses using descriptive statistics and present data as mean with standard deviation (SD) or count with percentage as appropriate.

RESULTS

Over seven months, 80/131 (61%) physicians responded from 77 ICUs, 50% of which were from Ontario. Respondents had a mean (SD) clinical experience of 12 (9) years, and 61% worked in academic centres. When asked about their perceptions of how frequently unnecessary blood tests are ordered, 61% responded "sometimes" and 23% responded "almost always." Fifty-seven percent favoured ordering complete blood counts one day in advance. Only 24% of respondents believed that advanced blood test ordering frequently led to changes in management. The most common factors perceived to influence blood test ordering in the ICU were physician preferences, institutional patterns, and order sets.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents to this survey perceived that unnecessary blood testing occurs in the ICU. The survey identified possible strategies to decrease the number of blood tests.

Effect of using smaller blood volume tubes and closed blood collection devices on total blood loss in patients undergoing major cardiac and vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic laboratory tests are an integral part of managing hospitalized patients. In particular, patients in the intensive care units (ICUs) can experience a concerning amount of blood loss due to diagnostic testing, which can increase the risk developing iatrogenic anemia. Several interventions exist to curtail avoidable blood loss, for example computerized decision support, smaller phlebotomy tubes, and other blood conservation devices. Nevertheless, use of these interventions is not standardized. Therefore, the objective of our study was to quantify the daily phlebotomy volume taken from patients who had undergone major cardiac or vascular surgery.

METHODS

We estimated the number of blood analyses and volumes of drawn blood of 400 consecutive patients (≥ 18 yr) undergoing major cardiac or vascular surgery. The amount of blood saved using small-volume tubes and in combination with blood conservation device rather than standard-volume tubes was estimated for serum chemistry (serum), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) tubes, sodium citrate coagulation (SCC) tubes, and arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis.

RESULTS

The mean total blood loss due to phlebotomy drawing using standard-volume tubes during hospitalization was 167.9 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 158.0 to 177.8), 255.6 mL (95% CI, 226.5 to 284.6), and 695.3 mL (95% CI, 544.1 to 846.4) for patients undergoing cardiac surgery with a hospital length of stay (LOS) of 0-10, 11-20, and ≥ 21 days, respectively. The mean total blood loss due to phlebotomy during hospitalization was 80.5 mL (95% CI, 70.5 to 90.6), 225.0 mL (95% CI, 135.1 to 314.8 mL) and 470.3 mL (95% CI, 333.5 to 607.1) for vascular surgery patients with LOS 0-10, 11-20, and ≥ 21 days, respectively. Patients with at least a two-day stay at the ICU had a mean blood loss of 146.6 mL (95% CI, 134.6 to 158.6 mL) and those with ≥ 11 days incurred a loss of 1,428 mL (95% CI, 1,117.8 to 1,739.2). The use of closed blood collection device and small-volume tubes (serum, EDTA, SCC, and ABG) reduced blood loss by 82.8 mL for patients with an ICU stay of 2 days and up to 824.0 mL for patients with a ICU stay of ≥ 11 days.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic laboratory tests are associated with significant patient blood loss, but are a modifiable risk factor. The use of small-volume tubes and closed blood collection devices decreases the volume of patient blood drawn for analysis and prevents blood waste.

Interventions to improve appropriateness of laboratory testing in the intensive care unit: a narrative review

Healthcare expenses are increasing, as is the utilization of laboratory resources. Despite this, between 20% and 40% of requested tests are deemed inappropriate. Improper use of laboratory resources leads to unwanted consequences such as hospital-acquired anemia, infections, increased costs, staff workload and patient stress and discomfort. The most unfavorable consequences result from unnecessary follow-up tests and treatments (overuse) and missed or delayed diagnoses (underuse). In this context, several interventions have been carried out to improve the appropriateness of laboratory testing. To date, there have been few published assessments of interventions specific to the intensive care unit. We reviewed the literature for interventions implemented in the ICU to improve the appropriateness of laboratory testing. We searched literature from 2008 to 2023 in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases between April and June 2023. Five intervention categories were identified: education and guidance (E&G), audit and feedback, gatekeeping, computerized physician order entry (including reshaping of ordering panels), and multifaceted interventions (MFI). We included a sixth category exploring the potential role of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML)-based assisting tools in such interventions. E&G-based interventions and MFI are the most frequently used approaches. MFI is the most effective type of intervention, and shows the strongest persistence of effect over time. AI/ML-based tools may offer valuable assistance to the improvement of appropriate laboratory testing in the near future. Patient safety outcomes are not impaired by interventions to reduce inappropriate testing. The literature focuses mainly on reducing overuse of laboratory tests, with only one intervention mentioning underuse. We highlight an overall poor quality of methodological design and reporting and argue for standardization of intervention methods. Collaboration between clinicians and laboratory staff is key to improve appropriate laboratory utilization. This article offers practical guidance for optimizing the effectiveness of an intervention protocol designed to limit inappropriate use of laboratory resources.

Routine Versus On-Demand Blood Sampling in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence on routine versus on-demand blood sampling in critical care. We assessed the reported proportion of patients exposed to daily routine blood sampling, the tests performed, characteristics associated with more frequent blood sampling, and the reported benefits and harms of routine blood sampling compared with on-demand sampling.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, the Excerpta Medica Database, and the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online for studies assessing routine versus on-demand blood testing in critically ill patients from inception to September 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Abstracts and full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers.

STUDY EXTRACTION

Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined extraction forms.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 12,212 records screened, 298 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We included 70 studies; 50 nonrandomized interventional studies and 20 observational studies. Exposure to routine blood testing was 52-100% (very low certainty of evidence). Blood testing seemed to occur more frequently in medical intensive care settings with a median of 18 blood tests per patient day (interquartile range, 10-33) (very low certainty of evidence). Mixed biochemistry seemed to be the most frequently performed blood tests across all settings (five tests per patient day; interquartile range, 2-10) (very low certainty of evidence). Reductions in routine blood testing seemed to be associated with reduced transfusion rates and costs without apparent adverse patient outcomes (low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, routine blood testing in critically ill patients was common and varied considerably. A reduction in routine blood testing appeared to be associated with reduced transfusion rates and costs without adverse effects, but the evidence was very uncertain.

Reducing unnecessary diagnostic phlebotomy in intensive care: a prospective quality improvement intervention

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients receive frequent routine and recurring blood tests, some of which are unnecessary.

AIM

To reduce unnecessary routine phlebotomy in a 30-bed tertiary medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in Toronto, Ontario.

METHODS

This prospective quality improvement study included a 7-month preintervention baseline, 5-month intervention and 11-month postintervention period. Change strategies included education, ICU rounds checklists, electronic order set modifications, an electronic test add-on tool and audit and feedback. The primary outcome was mean volume of blood collected per patient-day. Secondary outcomes included the number blood tubes used and red cell transfusions. Balancing measures included the timing and types of blood tests, ICU length of stay and mortality. Outcomes were evaluated using process control charts and segmented regression.

RESULTS

Patient demographics did not differ between time periods; total number of patients: 2096, median age: 61 years, 60% male. Mean phlebotomy volume±SD decreased from 41.1±4.0 to 34.1±4.7 mL/patient-day. Special cause variation was met at 13 weeks. Segmental regression demonstrated an immediate postintervention decrease of 6.6 mL/patient-day (95% CI 1.8 to 11.4 p=0.009), which was sustained. Blood tube consumption decreased by 1.4 tubes/patient-day (95% CI 0.4 to 2.4, p=0.005) amounting to 13 276 tubes (95% CI 4602 to 22 127 tubes) saved over 11 months. Red blood cell transfusions decreased from 10.5±5.2 to 8.3±4.4 transfusions/100 patient-days (incident rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.88, p=0.01). There was no impact on length of stay (2 days, IQR 1-5) and mortality (18.1%±2.0%).

CONCLUSION

Iterative improvement interventions targeting clinician test ordering behaviour can reduce ICU phlebotomy and may impact red cell transfusions. Frequent stakeholder consultation, incorporating stewardship into daily workflow, and audit and feedback are effective strategies.

Choosing wisely in burn care

BACKGROUND

The Choosing Wisely Campaign was launched in 2012 and has been applied to a broad spectrum of disciplines in almost thirty countries, with the objective of reducing unnecessary or potentially harmful investigations and procedures, thus limiting costs and improving outcomes. In Canada, patients with burn injuries are usually initially assessed by primary care and emergency providers, while plastic or general surgeons provide ongoing management. We sought to develop a series of Choosing Wisely statements for burn care to guide these practitioners and inform suitable, cost-effective investigations and treatment choices.

METHODS

The Choosing Wisely Canada list for Burns was developed by members of the Canadian Special Interest Group of the American Burn Association. Eleven recommendations were generated from an initial list of 29 statements using a modified Delphi process and SurveyMonkey™.

RESULTS

Recommendations included statements on avoidance of prophylactic antibiotics, restriction of blood products, use of adjunctive analgesic medications, monitoring and titration of opioid analgesics, and minimizing 'routine' bloodwork, microbiology or radiological investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

The Choosing Wisely recommendations aim to encourage greater discussion between those involved in burn care, other health care professionals, and their patients, with a view to reduce the cost and adverse effects associated with unnecessary therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, while still maintaining high standards of evidence-based burn care.

Sustainable Laboratory-Driven Method to Decrease Repeat, Same-Day WBC Differentials at a Tertiary Care Center

OBJECTIVES

A CBC with WBC differential is often ordered when a CBC alone would be sufficient for patient care. Performing unnecessary WBC differentials adds to costs in the laboratory. Our objective was to implement a laboratory middleware algorithm to cancel repeat, same-day WBC differentials to achieve lasting improvements in laboratory resource allocation.

METHODS

Repeat same-day WBC differentials were first canceled only on intensive care unit samples; after a successful trial period, the algorithm was applied hospital-wide. We retrospectively reviewed CBC with differential orders from pre- and postimplementation periods to estimate the reduction in WBC differentials and potential cost savings.

RESULTS

The algorithm led to a monthly WBC differential cancellation rate of 5.40% for a total of 10,195 canceled WBC differentials during the cumulative postimplementation period (September 25, 2019, to December 31, 2020). Nearly all (99.94%) differentials remained canceled. Most patients only had one WBC differential canceled (range, 1-38). Savings estimates showed savings of $0.99 CAD per canceled differential and 1,060 minutes (17.7 hours) of technologist time.

CONCLUSIONS

A middleware algorithm to cancel repeat, same-day WBC differentials is a simple and sustainable way to achieve lasting improvements in laboratory utilization.

Factors Associated With Increased Laboratory Use in the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Laboratory testing is frequently used to guide postoperative management and contributes to hospital resource utilization; however, there is little evidence identifying patient or clinical factors to inform the appropriate frequency of laboratory testing in the pediatric cardiac intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the factors associated with increased laboratory utilization following pediatric congenital heart surgery.

METHODS

For each patient, the total number of tests and types of laboratory tests were recorded. Patients whose number of tests was greater than the 90th percentile were categorized as increased laboratory use.

RESULTS

A sample of 250 unique patients and 909 nursing shifts were obtained for patient- and shift-level analyses. The top 10% of patients identified as the high laboratory utilization group (>128 laboratory tests). High-use group reported significantly younger patients and longer bypass time (P < .001). Patients in the highest Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery 1 risk category were 34.7 times more likely to be in high laboratory utilization group (P = .006), independent of age at time of surgery and time on bypass (receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.855). At the shift level, time on bypass (P = .002), age younger than 30 days at surgery (P < .001), 3 to 5 years' registered nurse experience (P < .001), staff precepting (P = .03), and weekday shift status (P = .03) were all independently associated with high laboratory utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

There are multiple factors associated with increased laboratory utilization. Recognition of specific patient and nursing factors can be used to impact patient management.

How well do critical care audit and feedback interventions adhere to best practice? Development and application of the REFLECT-52 evaluation tool

BACKGROUND

Healthcare Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions have been shown to be an effective means of changing healthcare professional behavior, but work is required to optimize them, as evidence suggests that A&F interventions are not improving over time. Recent published guidance has suggested an initial set of best practices that may help to increase intervention effectiveness, which focus on the "Nature of the desired action," "Nature of the data available for feedback," "Feedback display," and "Delivering the feedback intervention." We aimed to develop a generalizable evaluation tool that can be used to assess whether A&F interventions conform to these suggestions for best practice and conducted initial testing of the tool through application to a sample of critical care A&F interventions.

METHODS

We used a consensus-based approach to develop an evaluation tool from published guidance and subsequently applied the tool to conduct a secondary analysis of A&F interventions. To start, the 15 suggestions for improved feedback interventions published by Brehaut et al. were deconstructed into rateable items. Items were developed through iterative consensus meetings among researchers. These items were then piloted on 12 A&F studies (two reviewers met for consensus each time after independently applying the tool to four A&F intervention studies). After each consensus meeting, items were modified to improve clarity and specificity, and to help increase the reliability between coders. We then assessed the conformity to best practices of 17 critical care A&F interventions, sourced from a systematic review of A&F interventions on provider ordering of laboratory tests and transfusions in the critical care setting. Data for each criteria item was extracted by one coder and confirmed by a second; results were then aggregated and presented graphically or in a table and described narratively.

RESULTS

In total, 52 criteria items were developed (38 ratable items and 14 descriptive items). Eight studies targeted lab test ordering behaviors, and 10 studies targeted blood transfusion ordering. Items focused on specifying the "Nature of the Desired Action" were adhered to most commonly-feedback was often presented in the context of an external priority (13/17), showed or described a discrepancy in performance (14/17), and in all cases it was reasonable for the recipients to be responsible for the change in behavior (17/17). Items focused on the "Nature of the Data Available for Feedback" were adhered to less often-only some interventions provided individual (5/17) or patient-level data (5/17), and few included aspirational comparators (2/17), or justifications for specificity of feedback (4/17), choice of comparator (0/9) or the interval between reports (3/13). Items focused on the "Nature of the Feedback Display" were reported poorly-just under half of interventions reported providing feedback in more than one way (8/17) and interventions rarely included pilot-testing of the feedback (1/17 unclear) or presentation of a visual display and summary message in close proximity of each other (1/13). Items focused on "Delivering the Feedback Intervention" were also poorly reported-feedback rarely reported use of barrier/enabler assessments (0/17), involved target members in the development of the feedback (0/17), or involved explicit design to be received and discussed in a social context (3/17); however, most interventions clearly indicated who was providing the feedback (11/17), involved a facilitator (8/12) or involved engaging in self-assessment around the target behavior prior to receipt of feedback (12/17).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the theory-informed best practice items were not consistently applied in critical care and can suggest clear ways to improve interventions. Standardized reporting of detailed intervention descriptions and feedback templates may also help to further advance research in this field. The 52-item tool can serve as a basis for reliably assessing concordance with best practice guidance in existing A&F interventions trialed in other healthcare settings, and could be used to inform future A&F intervention development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Safety and efficacy of routine diagnostic test reduction interventions in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Reducing unnecessary routine diagnostic testing has been identified as a strategy to curb wasteful healthcare. However, the safety and efficacy of targeted diagnostic testing strategies are uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review interventions designed to reduce pathology and chest radiograph testing in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A predetermined protocol and search strategy included OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 20 November 2019. Eligible publications included interventional studies of patients admitted to an ICU. There were no language restrictions. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and test reduction. Key secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, length of stay, costs and adverse events. This systematic review analysed 26 studies (with more than 44,00 patients) reporting an intervention to reduce one or more diagnostic tests. No studies were at low risk of bias. In-hospital mortality, reported in seven studies, was not significantly different in the post-implementation group (829 of 9815 patients, 8.4%) compared with the pre-intervention group (1007 of 9848 patients, 10.2%), (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence intervals 0.79 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I² 39%). Of the 18 studies reporting a difference in testing rates, all reported a decrease associated with targeted testing (range 6%-72%), with 14 (82%) studies reporting >20% reduction in one or more tests. Studies of ICU targeted test interventions are generally of low quality. The majority report substantial decreases in testing without evidence of a significant difference in hospital mortality.

Patient harm associated with serial phlebotomy and blood waste in the intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at high risk of anemia, and phlebotomy is a potentially modifiable source of blood loss. Our objective was to quantify daily phlebotomy volume for ICU patients, including blood discarded as waste during vascular access, and evaluate the impact of phlebotomy volume on patient outcomes.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational cohort study between September 2014 and August 2015 at a tertiary care academic medical-surgical ICU. A prospective audit of phlebotomy practices in March 2018 was used to estimate blood waste during vascular access. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate phlebotomy volume as a predictor of ICU nadir hemoglobin < 80 g/L, and red blood cell transfusion.

Results

There were 428 index ICU admissions, median age 64.4 yr, 41% female. Forty-four patients (10%) with major bleeding events were excluded. Mean bedside waste per blood draw (144 draws) was: 3.9 mL from arterial lines, 5.5 mL central venous lines, and 6.3 mL from peripherally inserted central catheters. Mean phlebotomy volume per patient day was 48.1 ± 22.2 mL; 33.1 ± 15.0 mL received by the lab and 15.0 ± 8.1 mL discarded as bedside waste. Multivariable regression, including age, sex, admission hemoglobin, sequential organ failure assessment score, and ICU length of stay, showed total daily phlebotomy volume was predictive of hemoglobin <80 g/L (p = 0.002), red blood cell transfusion (p<0.001), and inpatient mortality (p = 0.002). For every 5 mL increase in average daily phlebotomy the odds ratio for nadir hemoglobin <80 g/L was 1.18 (95% CI 1.07–1.31) and for red blood cell transfusion was 1.17 (95% CI 1.07–1.28).

Conclusion

A substantial portion of daily ICU phlebotomy is waste discarded during vascular access. Average ICU phlebotomy volume is independently associated with ICU acquired anemia and red blood cell transfusion which supports the need for phlebotomy stewardship programs.

A deep learning solution to recommend laboratory reduction strategies in ICU

OBJECTIVE

To build a machine-learning model that predicts laboratory test results and provides a promising lab test reduction strategy, using spatial-temporal correlations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a global prediction model to treat laboratory testing as a series of decisions by considering contextual information over time and across modalities. We validated our method using a critical care database (MIMIC III), which includes 4,570,709 observations of 12 standard laboratory tests, among 38,773 critical care patients. Our deep-learning model made real-time laboratory reduction recommendations and predicted the properties of lab tests, including values, normal/abnormal (whether labs were within the normal range) and transition (normal to abnormal or abnormal to normal from the latest lab test). We reported area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for predicting normal/abnormal, evaluated accuracy and absolute bias on prediction vs. observation against lab test reduction proportion. We compared our model against baseline models and analyzed the impact of variations on the recommended reduction strategy.

RESULTS

Our best model offered a 20.26 % reduction in the number of laboratory tests. By applying the recommended reduction policy on the hold-out dataset (7755 patients), our model predicted normality/abnormality of laboratory tests with a 98.27 % accuracy (AUC, 0.9885; sensitivity, 97.84 %; specificity, 98.80 %; PPV, 99.01 %; NPV, 97.39 %) on 20.26 % reduced lab tests, and recommended 98.10 % of transitions to be checked. Our model performed better than the greedy models, and the recommended reduction strategy was robust.

DISCUSSION

Strong spatial and temporal correlations between laboratory tests can be used to optimize policies for reducing laboratory tests throughout the hospital course. Our method allows for iterative predictions and provides a superior solution for the dynamic decision-making laboratory reduction problem.

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrates a machine-learning model that assists physicians in determining which laboratory tests may be omitted.

A systematic literature review on unnecessary diagnostic testing: The role of ICT use

BACKGROUND

The negative impact of unnecessary diagnostic tests on healthcare systems and patients has been widely recognized. Medical researchers in various countries have been devoting effort to reduce unnecessary diagnostic tests by using different types of interventions, including information and communications technology-based (ICT-based) intervention, educational intervention, audit and feedback, the introduction of guidelines or protocols, and the reward and punishment of staff. We conducted a review of ICT based interventions and a comparative analysis of their relative effectiveness in reducing unnecessary tests.

METHOD

A systematic Boolean search in PubMed, EMBase and EBSCOhost research databases was performed. Keyword search and citation analysis were also conducted. Empirical studies reporting ICT based interventions, and their implications on relative effectiveness in reducing unnecessary diagnostic tests (pathology tests or medical imaging) were evaluated independently by two reviewers based on a rigorously developed coding protocol.

RESULTS

92 research articles from peer-reviewed journals were identified as eligible. 47 studies involved a single-method intervention and 45 involved multi-method interventions. Regardless of the number of interventions involved in the studies, ICT-based interventions were utilized by 71 studies and 59 of them were shown to be effective in reducing unnecessary testing. A clinical decision support (CDS) tool appeared to be the most adopted ICT approach, with 46 out of 71 studies using CDS tools. The CDS tool showed effectiveness in reducing test volume in 38 studies and reducing cost in 24 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review investigated five frequently utilized intervention methods, ICT-based, education, introduction of guidelines or protocols, audit and feedback, and reward and punishment. It provides in-depth analysis of the efficacy of different types of interventions and sheds insights about the benefits of ICT based interventions, especially those utilising CDS tools, to reduce unnecessary diagnostic testing. The replicability of the studies is limited due to the heterogeneity of the studies in terms of context, study design, and targeted types of tests.

Audit and feedback to improve laboratory test and transfusion ordering in critical care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting.

METHODS

Five databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016051941.

Optimization of Laboratory Ordering Practices for Complete Blood Count With Differential

Objectives

To investigate the utilization of CBC and CBC with differential (CBC w/diff) tests at University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, and to determine if a reduction in CBC w/diff tests could be achieved without negatively impacting patient care.

Methods

The quantity of testing and distribution of repeated tests before, during, and after an educational intervention were compared.

Results

CBC w/diff tests were ordered 10-fold more frequently than CBC tests. The trauma burn intensive care unit ordered the most CBC w/diff tests, with repeat tests done every 4 or 12 hours. The educational intervention reduced the number of CBC w/diff tests ordered and tests repeated every 12 hours.

Conclusions

The educational intervention changed the ordering practices of CBC w/diff and CBC tests. This was sustained after the intervention and no negative effects on patient care were noted. Similar interventions may lead to optimization of ordering practices of other laboratory tests.

Impact of the acute care nurse practitioner in reducing the number of unwarranted daily laboratory tests in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Frequent laboratory testing may be necessary at times for critically ill patients. However, the practice of indiscriminate laboratory test ordering is common.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this quality improvement project was to assess the effectiveness of the acute care nurse practitioner (ACNP) in reducing the number of unwarranted laboratory tests ordered for ICU patients. To determine whether the presence of an ACNP would make a difference, an ACNP was present on daily ICU multidisciplinary rounds to facilitate the discussion of the laboratory testing needs for each patient for the following 24-hour period.

CONCLUSIONS

Eighty-one patients were enrolled in the project, 41 in the comparison and 40 in the intervention group. No significant differences were noted between the two groups. The project demonstrated that although there was an increase in tests ordered for the intervention group, the increase was brought about by an increase in specific individual tests rather than an increase in panels of laboratory tests. A reduction in patient cost was observed for the number of tests ordered. No increase in adverse events was noted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Acute care nurse practitioner presence on multidisciplinary rounds may be an effective method to change the practice toward the ordering of tests based on clinical indication.

Reducing the number of unnecessary routine laboratory tests through education of internal medicine residents

Introduction

The Choosing Wisely guidelines advise against ordering routine blood tests for hospitalised patients unless they change management. Unnecessary testing can lead to adverse effects (eg, iatrogenic anaemia, poor sleep quality, risk for infections and increased cost of care).

Methods

An 8-week quality initiative aimed at reducing unnecessary blood tests was implemented in three internal medicine resident inpatient services. The initiative included a 30 min educational session, reminders prior to rotation and midrotation and posters in work areas that displayed lab pricing and urged judicious testing. Residents were encouraged to justify the purpose of ordering tests in their daily progress notes. Attending physicians were made aware of the initiative. Preintervention and postintervention time points were used to compare key metrics. A >10% decrease between time periods was used as an evaluation criterion.

Results

There were 293 patient records reviewed in the preintervention period and 419 in the postintervention period. The two groups were similar in terms of age and gender. Median blood test count (complete blood count/basic metabolic profile/comprehensive metabolic profile) decreased from 4 to 2 tests per patient per day (50 % decrease) after the intervention. The median length of hospital stay decreased from 4.9 to 3.9 days (21% decrease). A decreased percentage of people requiring transfusions was also noted (2016: 6.1%, 2017: 2.9%).

Conclusion

The frequency of unnecessary routine blood tests ordered in the hospital can be decreased by educating resident physicians, making them cost conscious and aware of the indications for ordering routine labs. Frequent reminders are needed to sustain the educational benefit.

Reducing Test Utilization in Hospital Settings: A Narrative Review

Background

Studies addressing the appropriateness of laboratory testing have revealed approximately 20% overutilization. We conducted a narrative review to (1) describe current interventions aimed at reducing unnecessary laboratory testing, specifically in hospital settings, and (2) provide estimates of their efficacy in reducing test order volume and improving patient-related clinical outcomes.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health-Health Technology Assessment databases were searched for studies describing the effects of interventions aimed at reducing unnecessary laboratory tests. Data on test order volume and clinical outcomes were extracted by one reviewer, while uncertainties were discussed with two other reviewers. Because of the heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, no meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Eighty-four studies were included. Interventions were categorized into educational, (computerized) provider order entry [(C)POE], audit and feedback, or other interventions. Nearly all studies reported a reduction in test order volume. Only 15 assessed sustainability up to two years. Patient-related clinical outcomes were reported in 45 studies, two of which found negative effects.

Conclusions

Interventions from all categories have the potential to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing, although long-term sustainability is questionable. Owing to the heterogeneity of the interventions studied, it is difficult to conclude which approach was most successful, and for which tests. Most studies had methodological limitations, such as the absence of a control arm. Therefore, well-designed, controlled trials using clearly described interventions and relevant clinical outcomes are needed.

Laboratory Tests and X-ray Imaging in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit: Checking the Checklist

Context

Patients in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) frequently undergo laboratory and imaging testing. These tests can lead to iatrogenic anemia and radiation exposure. Many of these tests may be unnecessary for the management of a patient's illness in the surgical ICU, and their ordering may be a reflex rather than in response to a clinical question. Checklists have been used in critical care to identify and address patient care strategies.

Objective

To examine whether adding a “diagnostic testing” section to a daily checklist used for patient rounds in a surgical ICU would decrease the amount of laboratory tests and chest x-ray imaging ordered.

Methods

An additional section was added to an established ICU daily checklist, which included the following 2 questions: “Is a [chest x-ray] needed for clinical management tomorrow?” and “What laboratory tests are medically necessary for tomorrow?” Comparison was made between 3-month preintervention (control group) and intervention (intervention group) periods. Medical records of hospitalized patients during the preintervention and intervention periods were compared to determine differences in the number of tests ordered per day during each period.

Results

A total of 307 adult patients at a single institution were included in the analysis: 155 in the control group and 152 in the intervention group. The patients in each group were similar in terms of sex, age, Sequential Organ Failure scores, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, elective admission status, surgical procedures, number of days of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital death. No statistical reductions in laboratory tests or chest x-ray imaging ordered per day from the preintervention to intervention period were found.

Conclusion

The addition of the diagnostic testing section to the daily checklist did not result in a reduction of the amount of tests ordered per day. Further research on test appropriateness and the possible addition of a clinician decision-making tool could be studied in the future to assist with reduction of tests ordered in the surgical ICU.

REDucing Unnecessary Coagulation Testing in the Emergency Department (REDUCED)

The PT/INR (prothrombin time/international normalized ratio) and aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time) were tests developed in the early 20th century for specific and unique indications. Despite this, they are often ordered together routinely. The objective of this study was to determine if a multimodal intervention could reduce PT/INR and aPTT testing in the emergency department (ED). This was a prospective multi-pronged quality improvement study at St. Michael's Hospital. The initiative involved stakeholder engagement, uncoupling of PT/INR and aPTT testing, teaching, and most importantly a revision to the ED order panels. After changes to order panels, weekly rates of PT/INR and aPTT testing per 100 ED patients decreased (17.2 vs 38.4, rate ratio=0.45 (95% CI 0.43-0.47), p<0.001; 16.6 vs 37.8, rate ratio=0.44 (95% CI 0.42-0.46), p<0.001, respectively). Rate of creatinine testing per 100 ED patients, our internal control, increased during the same period (54.0 vs 49.7, rate ratio=1.09 (95% CI 1.06-1.12); p<0.0001) while the weekly rate per 100 ED patients receiving blood transfusions slightly decreased (0.5 vs 0.7, rate ratio=0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.87), p=0.0034). We found that a simple process change to order panels was associated with meaningful reductions in coagulation testing without obvious adverse effects.