Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UK-wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive

Variation in liver function testing and the effect of pyridoxal-5-phosphate on ALT, AST and FIB-4 results

BACKGROUND

As one of the most requested profiles of blood tests, there is a need for standardization among liver function tests (LFT). Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) are key markers of hepatocellular injury. ALT and AST are used to calculate a Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score for assessing liver fibrosis. Despite recommendations by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) to include pyridoxal-5-phosphate in ALT and AST assay methodologies, most laboratories continue to omit this.

METHODS

Data from the UK NEQAS for Clinical Chemistry Scheme, Distribution 1160 (November 2023), was reviewed to investigate variation in practice regarding liver blood tests in relation to ALT, AST and FIB-4. In addition, a series of questions audited laboratory practice in relation to liver enzymes.

RESULTS

Wide variation was seen in LFT profiles offered by laboratories, with 32 different combinations of tests used. The IFCC-recommended methods for ALT and AST are used by one-third of laboratories and give significantly higher results than non-IFCC methods. Laboratories using IFCC methods also reported significantly higher FIB-4 scores. Reference ranges and cut-offs for these tests also varied, and did not account for method-related differences in results.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of standardization of LFTs can have a significant impact on patient care. The difference in results for ALT, AST and FIB-4 in laboratories not using IFCC-recommended methods may lead to misdiagnosis. This issue should be addressed by laboratories using methods including pyridoxal-5-phosphate. Until then, method-related reference ranges and cut-offs for ALT, AST and FIB-4 are required.

Patient safety in actioning and communicating blood test results in primary care: a UK wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT)

BACKGROUND

Errors associated with failures in filing, actioning and communicating blood test results can lead to delayed and missed diagnoses and patient harm. This study aimed to audit how blood tests in primary care are filed, actioned and communicated in primary care, to identify areas for patient safety improvements.

METHODS

UK primary care clinicians were recruited through the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT). PACT members audited 50 recent sets of blood tests from their practice and retrospectively extracted data on blood test result coding, actioning and communication. PACT members received a practice report, showing their own results, benchmarked against other participating practices.

RESULTS

PACT members from 57 general practices across all four UK nations collected data on 2572 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. In 89.9% (n=2311) they agreed with the initial clinician's actioning of blood tests; 10.1% disagreed, either partially (7.1%) or fully (3.0%).In 44% of patients (n=1132) an action (eg, 'make an appointment') was specified by the filing clinician. This action was carried out in 89.7% (n=1015/1132) of cases; in 6.8% (n=77) the action was not carried out, in 3.5% (n=40) it was unclear. In the 117 cases where the test result had not been actioned 38% (n=45) were felt to be at low risk of harm, 1.7% (n=2) were at high risk of harm, 0.85% (n=1) came to harm.Overall, in 47% (n=1210) of patients there was no evidence in the electronic health records that results had been communicated. Out of 1176 patients with one or more abnormal results there was no evidence of test communication in 30.6% (n=360). There were large variations between practices in rates of actioning and communicating tests.

CONCLUSION

This research demonstrates variation in the way blood test results are actioned and communicated, with important patient safety implications.

National treatment guidelines poorly achieved among older subjects with type 2 diabetes - call to action!

OBJECTIVE

To assess risk factors and factors associated with nonachievement of the treatment target levels among 75-year-old Finns with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Outpatient.

SUBJECTS

Seventy-five-year-old participants of the Turku Senior Health Clinic Study (N = 1296) with T2D (n = 247).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Nonachievement of fasting blood glucose (FBG), low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), and blood pressure (BP) levels set by the national treatment guidelines.

RESULTS

Nonachievement rates of FBG, BP and LDL-C were 47%, 85%, and 47%, respectively. Non-usage of T2D medication was negatively (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16-0.88) and central obesity positively (1.88, 1.09-3.24) related to nonachievement of FBG target level; alcohol use was positively (3.71, 1.04-13.16) and decreased self-rated health negatively (0.34, 0.12-0.97) related to the nonachievement of BP target level. Nonachievement of LDL-C target level was positively related to poor financial status (3.50, 1.19-10.28) and non-use of lipid-lowering medication (7.70, 4.07-14.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonachievement rates of the national treatment goals were high among older T2D patients, and nonachievement was related to use of medication, obesity, alcohol use, poor health, and poor financial status. We emphasize the importance of customized target setting by risk factor levels and active treatment.