Can physician laboratory-test requests be influenced by interventions?

The impact of interventions applied in primary care to optimize the use of laboratory tests: a systematic review

Laboratory tests are important tools in primary care, but their use is sometimes inappropriate. The aim of this review is to give an overview of interventions applied in primary care to optimize the use of laboratory tests. A search for studies was made in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We also extracted studies from two previous reviews published in 2015. Studies were included if they described application of an intervention aiming to optimize the use of laboratory tests. We also evaluated the overall risk of bias of the studies. We included 24 studies. The interventions were categorized as: education, feedback reports and computerized physician order entry (CPOE) strategies. Most of the studies were classified as medium or high risk of bias while only three studies were evaluated as low risk of bias. The majority of the studies aimed at reducing the number of tests, while four studies investigated interventions aiming to increase the use of specific tests. Despite the studies being heterogeneous, we made results comparable by transforming the results into weighted relative changes in number of tests when necessary. Education changed the number of tests consistently, and these results were supported by the low risk of bias of the papers. Feedback reports have mainly been applied in combination with education, while when used alone the effect was minimal. The use of CPOE strategies seem to produce a marked change in the number of test requests, however the studies were of medium or high risk of bias.

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.

Impact of an education and multilevel social comparison–based intervention bundle on use of routine blood tests in hospitalised patients at an academic tertiary care hospital: a controlled pre-intervention post-intervention study

Background

Repetitive inpatient laboratory testing contributes to waste in healthcare. We evaluated an intervention bundle combining education and multilevel social comparison feedback to safely reduce repetitive use of inpatient routine laboratory tests.

Methods

This non-randomised controlled pre-intervention post-intervention study was conducted in four adult hospitals from October 2016 to March 2018. In the medical teaching unit (MTU) of the intervention site, learners received education and aggregate social comparison feedback and attending internists received individual comparison feedback on routine laboratory test utilisation. MTUs of the remaining three sites served as control units. Number and cost of routine laboratory tests ordered per patient-day before and after the intervention was compared with the control units, adjusting for patient factors. Safety endpoints included number of critically abnormal laboratory test results, number of stat laboratory test orders, patient length of stay, transfer rate to the ICU, and 30-day readmission and mortality.

Results

A total of 14 000 patients were included. Pre-intervention and post-intervention groups were similar in age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and length of stay. From the pre-intervention period to the post-intervention period, significantly fewer routine laboratory tests were ordered at the intervention MTU (incidence rate ratio=0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00; p=0.048) with associated costs savings of $C68 877 (p=0.020) as compared with the control sites. The variability in the ordering pattern of internists at the intervention site also decreased post-intervention. No worsening was noted in the safety endpoints between the pre-intervention and post-intervention period at the intervention unit compared with the controls.

Conclusions

Combination of education and multilevel social comparison feedback significantly and safely led to cost savings through reduced use of routine laboratory tests in hospitalised patients.

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.

An Audit of Repeat Testing at an Academic Medical Center: Consistency of Order Patterns With Recommendations and Potential Cost Savings

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence of potentially unnecessary repeat testing (PURT) and the associated economic burden for an inpatient population at a large academic medical facility.

METHODS

We evaluated all inpatient test orders during 2016 for PURT by comparing the intertest times to published recommendations. Potential cost savings were estimated using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services maximum allowable reimbursement rate. We evaluated result positivity as a determinant of PURT through logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the evaluated 4,242 repeated target tests, 1,849 (44%) were identified as PURT, representing an estimated cost-savings opportunity of $37,376. Collectively, the association of result positivity and PURT was statistically significant (relative risk, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.3; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

PURT contributes to unnecessary health care costs. We found that a small percentage of providers account for the majority of PURT, and PURT is positively associated with result positivity.

Optimizing laboratory test utilization in long-term acute care hospitals

Laboratory tests can be considered inappropriate if overused or when repeated, unnecessary "routine" testing occurs. For chronically critically ill patients treated in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs), inappropriate testing may result in unnecessary blood draws that could potentially harm patients or increase infections. A quality improvement initiative was designed to increase physician awareness of their patterns of lab utilization in the LTACH environment. Within a large network of LTACHs, 9 hospitals were identified as having higher patterns of lab utilization than other LTACHs. Meetings were held with administrative staff and physicians, who designed and implemented hospital-specific strategies to address lab utilization. Lab utilization was measured in units of lab tests ordered per inpatient day (lab UPPD) for 8 months prior to the initial meeting and 7 months after the meeting. A repeated measures mixed model determined that postintervention lab utilization improved, on average and adjusted by case mix index, by 0.37 lab UPPD (t = -3.61, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.58) compared to the preintervention period. Overall, the case mix index 8 months prior to the intervention was no different than it was 7 months after the initial meeting (t[8] = -0.96, P = 0.37). Patient safety and outcome measures, including percentage of patients weaned from a ventilator, readmission rates, central catheter utilization rates, and the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and other multidrug resistant organisms, showed no significant change. Hospital staff meetings focused on lab utilization and the development and deployment of tailored lab utilization strategies were associated with LTACHs achieving significantly lower lab utilization without negatively impacting quality outcomes.

Analysis of Daily Laboratory Orders at a Large Urban Academic Center: A Multifaceted Approach to Changing Test Ordering Patterns

OBJECTIVES

We sought to address concerns regarding recurring inpatient laboratory test order practices (daily laboratory tests) through a multifaceted approach to changing ordering patterns.

METHODS

We engaged in an interdepartmental collaboration to foster mindful test ordering through clinical policy creation, electronic clinical decision support, and continuous auditing and feedback.

RESULTS

Annualized daily order volumes decreased from approximately 25,000 to 10,000 during a 33-month postintervention review. This represented a significant change from preintervention order volumes (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.64; P < 10-16). Total inpatient test volumes were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Durable changes to inpatient order practices can be achieved through a collaborative approach to utilization management that includes shared responsibility for establishing clinical guidelines and electronic decision support. Our experience suggests auditing and continued feedback are additional crucial components to changing ordering behavior. Curtailing daily orders alone may not be a sufficient strategy to reduce in-laboratory costs.

Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions.

Organizational Benchmarks for Test Utilization Performance: An Example Based on Positivity Rates for Genetic Tests

OBJECTIVES

Health care organizations are under increasing pressure to deliver value by improving test utilization management. Many factors, including organizational factors, could affect utilization performance. Past research has focused on the impact of specific interventions in single organizations. The impact of organizational factors is unknown. The objective of this study is to determine whether testing patterns are subject to organizational effects, ie, are utilization patterns for individual tests correlated within organizations.

METHODS

Comparative analysis of ordering patterns (positivity rates for three genetic tests) across 659 organizations. Hierarchical regression was used to assess the impact of organizational factors after controlling for test-level factors (mutation prevalence) and hospital bed size.

RESULTS

Test positivity rates were correlated within organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Organizations have a statistically significant impact on the positivity rate of three genetic tests.

Interventions Aimed at Reducing Use of Low-Value Health Services: A Systematic Review

The effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce low-value care has been insufficiently summarized to allow for translation to practice. This article systematically reviews the literature on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value care and the quality of those studies. We found that multicomponent interventions addressing both patient and clinician roles in overuse have the greatest potential to reduce low-value care. Clinical decision support and performance feedback are promising strategies with a solid evidence base, and provider education yields changes by itself and when paired with other strategies. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance, insurer restrictions, and risk-sharing contracts to reduce use of low-value care. While the literature reveals important evidence on strategies used to reduce low-value care, meaningful gaps persist. More experimentation, paired with rigorous evaluation and publication, is needed.