A Clinical Process Change and Educational Intervention to Reduce the Use of Unnecessary Preoperative Tests

Cost of Low-Value Imaging Worldwide: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Imaging with low or no benefit for the patient undermines the quality of care and amounts to vast opportunity costs. More than 3.6 billion imaging examinations are performed annually, and about 20-50% of these are of low value. This study aimed to synthesize knowledge of the costs of low-value imaging worldwide.

METHODS

This systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement. The database search was developed in Medline and further adapted to Embase-Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Primary empirical studies assessing the costs of low-value diagnostic imaging were included if published between 2012 and March 2022. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, descriptive studies, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and mixed-methods studies were eligible. The analysis was descriptive.

RESULTS

Of 5,567 records identified, 106 were included. Most of the studies included were conducted in the USA (n = 76), and a hospital or medical center was the most common setting (n = 82). Thirty-eight of the included studies calculated the costs of multiple imaging modalities; in studies with only one imaging modality included, conventional radiography was the most common (n = 32). Aggregated costs for low-value examinations amounts to billions of dollars per year globally. Initiatives to reduce low-value imaging may reduce costs by up to 95% without harming patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first systematic review of the cost of low-value imaging worldwide, documenting a high potential for cost reduction. Given the universal challenges with resource allocation, the large amount used for low-value imaging represents a vast opportunity cost and offers great potential to improve the quality and efficiency of care.

An Economic Evaluation of the Preoperative Investigations for Elective Surgical Patients at a Caribbean Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital

Introduction Preoperative assessment using widespread laboratory investigations and ancillary tests as preoperative screening may be unnecessary and lead to an economic burden. This study aimed to determine the routine preoperative investigations performed in a tertiary care teaching hospital in the Caribbean that could be categorized as unnecessary and the costs incurred for these tests. Methods Patient and surgery-specific data were collected prospectively from adult elective surgery patients over a three-month period. Surgical intensity, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (UK, 2016) Clinical Guideline for Preoperative Investigations were used to determine which tests to deem unnecessary. The overall economic burden of unnecessary testing was assessed. Results Data were prospectively collected from 636 patients during the study period. Sixty-four percent of the preoperative investigations performed were deemed unnecessary. The money spent on these unnecessary investigations amounted to $44,622. When extrapolated, this can amount to approximately $178,488 per annum. This represented 59% of the total money spent on the overall preoperative investigations performed. Relatively healthier patients (ASA I and II) had a significantly higher number of unnecessary investigations performed. Conclusion This study found that the majority of preoperative investigations performed routinely may be deemed unnecessary. This results in a huge economic burden on the healthcare system. There is a need to update and strictly implement clinical guidelines for preoperative investigations.

Intervention Descriptions in Medical Education: What Can Be Improved? A Systematic Review and Checklist

PURPOSE

Many medical education studies focus on the effectiveness of educational interventions. However, these studies often lack clear, thorough descriptions of interventions that would make the interventions replicable. This systematic review aimed to identify gaps and limitations in the descriptions of educational interventions, using a comprehensive checklist.

METHOD

Based on the literature, the authors developed a checklist of 17 criteria for thorough descriptions of educational interventions in medical education. They searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and ERIC databases for eligible English-language studies published January 2014-March 2016 that evaluated the effects of educational interventions during classroom teaching in postgraduate medical education. Subsequently, they used this checklist to systematically review the included studies. Descriptions were scored 0 (no information), 1 (unclear/partial information), or 2 (detailed description) for each of the 16 scorable criteria (possible range 0-32).

RESULTS

Among the 105 included studies, the criteria most frequently reported in detail were learning needs (78.1%), content/subject (77.1%), and educational strategies (79.0%). The criteria least frequently reported in detail were incentives (9.5%), environment (5.7%), and planned and unplanned changes (12.4%). No article described all criteria. The mean score was 15.9 (SD 4.1), with a range from 8 (5 studies) to 25 (1 study). The majority (76.2%) of articles scored 11-20.

CONCLUSIONS

Descriptions were frequently missing key information and lacked uniformity. The results suggest a need for a common standard. The authors encourage others to validate, complement, and use their checklist, which could lead to more complete, comparable, and replicable descriptions of educational interventions.

Practical motives are prominent in test-ordering in the Emergency Department

Background:

Laboratory test ordering under time pressure may impact test-ordering behavior.

Methods:

To investigate the test-ordering behavior of doctors working under such pressure, we designed a questionnaire for trainees and staff in the Emergency Department (ED). This questionnaire addressed topics such as necessity of requested tests, time spent on ordering, costs and availability of tests, and the time of the day. We hypothesized that ordering behavior would be guided predominantly by the medical need of tests and aimed at identifying practical motives that also have an effect.

Results:

Remarkably, two-third of the respondents (67%) admitted that tests were ordered that would not influence treatment policy directly and 48% of the doctors stated that tests were ordered that do not impact treatment at all. The frequency of such orders was “sometimes” and “frequent” in a 50:50 ratio. Interestingly, tests that could prove relevant at a later stage are often ordered simultaneously to reduce burden on the patient. None of the respondents spent more than 3 min on the ordering process and very few (8%) desired more time for ordering. Most respondents (81%) declared to have limited knowledge of the costs of laboratory tests. A random survey covering four tests confirmed this. Generally, turnaround time did influence ordering behavior while time of the day did not.

Conclusions:

In conclusion, doctors in an ED – besides first of all medical motives – heavily exploit practical (non-medical) reasoning for laboratory test ordering, e.g. taking availability of tests into account and ordering non-immediate tests.