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.

Evaluation of a closed loop-blood sampling system in intensive care: A pilot randomised controlled trial. The ENCLOSE trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a closed-loop blood sampling system and blood conservation bundle.

METHODS

Single site, parallel group, pilot randomised control trial comparing open system sampling to closed system sampling and conservation bundle aligned with national guidelines. Randomisation sequence was generated by an independent statistician and allocation concealment maintained via sealed opaque envelopes. The study setting was the general intensive care unit of a major metropolitan public hospital in Queensland, Australia. Participants were ≥ 18 years who had an arterial catheter inserted in intensive care. Main outcome measures included trial feasibility, blood sample loss, haematocrit (HCT) change, and packed red blood cell transfusion use.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were randomised (n = 39 open group, n = 41 closed group). Characteristics in each group were equal at baseline with overall median age 60 years (IQR 48.6-70.4), 58 % male, and median APACHE II score 16 (IQR 11-22). The proportion of patients eligible was 29 % and missed eligible was 65 %. Otherwise, feasibility criteria were met with proportion of eligible patients agreeing to enrolment 99 %, 100 % of patients receiving allocated treatment; only 1 % of data missing. Analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in mean daily blood sample losses (open 32.7 (SD 1.58) mL vs closed 15.5 (SD 5.79) mL, t = -8.454, df = 78, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A large, multi-site trial is feasible with enhanced eligibility criteria, increased recruitment support. The intervention reduced daily blood sample volumes and transfusion use. Further trials are required to provide both effectiveness and implementation outcomes.

Rethinking Blood Testing in Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Quality Improvement Approach

Introduction:

The overuse of blood tests burdens the healthcare system and can detrimentally impact patient care. Risks of frequent blood sampling include infection and clinician-induced anemia, which can negatively impact patients and their families. Pediatric cancer patients are particularly vulnerable as they are immunocompromised with a small blood volume. Four blood tests had become a daily practice. Therefore, we aimed to reduce the number of blood tests taken per bed day within the inpatient pediatric cancer unit by 15% within 8 months.

Methods:

This quality improvement project combined several strategies to reduce test frequency and empower clinicians on the rationale for blood test ordering. Recommendations were developed collaboratively presented in a summary table. Targeted behavior-change methodology built engagement and momentum for the change. All clinicians were challenged to STOP and THINK about why a test is necessary for each patient. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of the tests taken per bed day. Frequency was compared between pre- and postimplementation plus follow-up periods across 2019–2021.

Results:

26,941 blood tests were captured in 1,558 admissions. The intervention led to an overall blood test reduction of 37% over 8 months. Liver Function Tests were the standout, with a 52% decrease in test frequency.

Conclusions:

A strategy incorporating education and culture change, combined with clear guidance on testing frequency, significantly reduced the ordering frequency of blood tests without increased patient harm.

Pathology Trainees Gain Clinical Pathology Experience as Lab Consultants Through Auditing Myeloid Mutation Panel Send-Out Tests

CONTEXT.—

Inappropriate laboratory testing and the threat it poses to patient care and rising health care costs has become an important focus in the medical literature. Pathology residents, as physicians with an intimate knowledge of laboratory testing, may be uniquely equipped with the tools to intervene in situations of inappropriate testing and also benefit from lab use experience as part of their clinical pathology training.

OBJECTIVE.—

To employ a resident-driven initiative aimed at incorporating pathology residents as consultants for appropriate ordering of high-volume, send-out myeloid mutation panel testing.

DESIGN.—

During a 6-month study period, all myeloid mutation panel send-out tests were screened by senior pathology residents on their clinical chemistry rotation prior to approval at an academic medical center. A retrospective review of myeloid mutation panels from the prior 6 months was conducted with the same criteria to determine effectiveness of the intervention.

RESULTS.—

Of the 234 tests ordered during the study period, screening resulted in cancellation of 17% (n = 39), with proportional cost savings. The number of inappropriate orders successfully cancelled was significant compared with the preintervention period (control, 0%; intervention, 76.5%; P < .001, Fisher exact test). There was no significant difference in the proportion of inappropriate tests before and after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Although test ordering patterns did not substantially change during the intervention period, pathology residents effectively reduced inappropriate myeloid mutation panel testing through prospective send-out auditing, leading to significant cost savings. Moreover, assessment of test use and appropriateness provided critical clinical pathology training within the areas of hematology, molecular genetics, and laboratory management.

Evaluation of Inappropriate COVID-19 RT-PCR Test Utilization at an academic medical center

Background

An evolving COVID-19 testing landscape and issues with test supply allocation, especially in the current pandemic, has made it challenging for ordering providers. We audited orders of the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR platform—the fastest of several other testing modalities available—to illuminate these challenges utilizing a multidisciplinary laboratory professional team consisting of a pathology resident and microbiology lab director.

Methods

Retrospective review of the first five hundred Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test orders from a 2-week period to determine test appropriateness based on the following indications: emergency surgery, emergent obstetric procedures, initial behavioral health admission, and later including discharge to skilled care facilities and pediatric admissions. Our hypothesis was that a significant proportion of orders for this testing platform were inappropriate.

Results

Upon review, a significant proportion of orders were incorrect, with 69.8% (n = 349, p < 0.0001) not meeting indications for rapid testing. Of all orders, 249 designated as emergency surgery were inappropriate, with 49.0% of those orders never proceeding with any surgical intervention; most of these were trauma related (64.6% were orders associated with a trauma unit).

Conclusions

Significant, pervasive inappropriate ordering practices were identified at this center. A laboratory professional team can be key to identifying problems in testing and play a significant role in combating inappropriate test utilization.

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.

A Scoping Review of Implementation Science in Adult Critical Care Settings

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this scoping review is to provide a synthesis of the available literature on implementation science in critical care settings. Specifically, we aimed to identify the evidence-based practices selected for implementation, the frequency and type of implementation strategies used to foster change, and the process and clinical outcomes associated with implementation.

DATA SOURCES

A librarian-assisted search was performed using three electronic databases.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles that reported outcomes aimed at disseminating, implementing, or sustaining an evidence-based intervention or practice, used established implementation strategies, and were conducted in a critical care unit were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text of articles to determine eligibility. Data extraction was performed using customized fields established a priori within a systematic review software system.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 1,707 citations, 82 met eligibility criteria. Studies included prospective research investigations, quality improvement projects, and implementation science trials. The most common practices investigated were use of a ventilator-associated pneumonia bundle, nutritional support protocols, and the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring/Management, and Early Exercise/Mobility bundle. A variety of implementation strategies were used to facilitate evidence adoption, most commonly educational meetings, auditing and feedback, developing tools, and use of local opinion leaders. The majority of studies (76/82, 93%) reported using more than one implementation strategy. Few studies specifically used implementation science designs and frameworks to systematically evaluate both implementation and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of critical care has experienced slow but steady gains in the number of investigations specifically guided by implementation science. However, given the exponential growth of evidence-based practices and guidelines in this same period, much work remains to critically evaluate the most effective mechanisms to integrate and sustain these practices across diverse critical care settings and teams.

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.

Expert Recommendations on Frequency of Utilization of Common Laboratory Tests in Medical Inpatients: a Canadian Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Repetitive inpatient laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability is a marker of low-value care. However, for commonly encountered clinical scenarios on medical units, there are no guidelines defining appropriate use criteria for laboratory tests.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to establish consensus-based recommendations for the utilization of common laboratory tests in medical inpatients.

DESIGN

This study uses a modified Delphi method. Participants completed two rounds of an online survey to determine appropriate testing frequencies for selected laboratory tests in commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 80% of participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 36 experts in internal medicine across Canada defined as internists in independent practice for ≥ 5 years with experience in medical education, quality improvement, or both. Experts represented 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces and 13 of 17 academic institutions.

MAIN MEASURES

Laboratory tests and clinical scenarios included were those that were considered common on medical units. The final survey contained a total of 45 clinical scenarios looking at the utilization of six laboratory tests (complete blood count, electrolytes, creatinine, urea, international normalized ratio, and partial thromboplastin time). The possible frequency choices were every 2-4 h, 6-8 h, twice a day, daily, every 2-3 days, weekly, or none unless there was specific diagnostic suspicion. These scenarios were reviewed by two internists with training in quality improvement and survey methods.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 45 initial clinical scenarios included, we reached consensus on 17 scenarios. We reached weak consensus on an additional 19 scenarios by combining two adjacent frequency categories.

CONCLUSIONS

A Canadian expert panel of internists has provided frequency recommendations on the utilization of six common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. These recommendations need validation in prospective studies to assess whether restrictive versus liberal laboratory test ordering impacts patient outcomes.

Routine vs on-demand blood sampling in critically ill patients-Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In intensive care units, blood sampling is done commonly as part of daily routine. It remains unknown whether this practice is associated with harms or benefits, as not all routine blood tests may be clinically indicated, and blood sampling done without specific indications may be problematic. Accordingly, we aim to assess the body of evidence regarding the usage of routine vs on-demand blood sampling in critically ill patients in a scoping review.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement as well as the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Using a PICO-based search strategy, we will systematically search the Cochrane Library, Embase and Medline for relevant studies regardless of design. Two authors will independently screen studies for inclusion and extract data. We will provide a descriptive analysis of the data and asses the quality of evidence in accordance with the Grading of Recommended Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

DISCUSSION

The outlined scoping review will provide an important overview on the current body of evidence regarding the use of daily routine vs on-demand blood sampling in critical care settings. The findings of this scoping review will guide further research.

The sustainable impact of an educational approach to improve the appropriateness of laboratory test orders in the ICU

INTRODUCTION

Few studies described strategies to improve the use of diagnostic tests in intensive care units (ICU). No study assessed whether their impact was sustained or not. In this study, we assessed whether a multi-faceted intervention for more appropriate use of laboratory testing can decrease the number of tests, is sustainable, is not associated with additional morbidity and represents a potential cost saving.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An open-label prospective cohort study in two separated units of the same medical intensive care unit (ICU) including respectively 3315 and 2392 consecutive patients. After the observation period (2010), a reduction in ICU A of unnecessary diagnostics tests as part of a program including senior supervisory of juniors' orders, encouragements for orders containment at each everyday round discussions (period 2; 2011). Period 3 (2012) consisted in the prolongation of the protocol as a routine care without supervision; Period 4 (2013) was a new period of observation without intervention. No modification was implemented in ICU B in periods 2-4.

RESULTS

After the intervention, a decrease in the overall number of tests per ICU-patient-days (37.3±5.5 (baseline) to 15.2±3.2 (- 59%); p<0.0001) was observed. The total cost of the tests decreased from 239±41 to 104±28 euros per ICU-patient days; p<0.0001. The effect on laboratory test orders was sustainable in period 3 (-49%) and 4 (-30%). No significant secondary effect of the intervention was observed in period 2. In ICU B, there was no significant change in the overall laboratory test orders in between the periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory test containment is effective, likely safe and sustainable provided that an educational program is repeatedly promoted, that it makes sense for the whole team, that senior and junior physicians are both committed in the program, and that encouragements for laboratory orders containment at each everyday round discussions.