Frequency monitoring of hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein, and urine protein laboratory testing: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study

What methods are being used to create an evidence base on the use of laboratory tests to monitor long-term conditions in primary care? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown unwarranted variation in test ordering among GP practices and regions, which may lead to patient harm and increased health care costs. There is currently no robust evidence base to inform guidelines on monitoring long-term conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To map the extent and nature of research that provides evidence on the use of laboratory tests to monitor long-term conditions in primary care, and to identify gaps in existing research.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review-a relatively new approach for mapping research evidence across broad topics-using data abstraction forms and charting data according to a scoping framework. We searched CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE to April 2019. We included studies that aimed to optimize the use of laboratory tests and determine costs, patient harm or variation related to testing in a primary care population with long-term conditions.

RESULTS

Ninety-four studies were included. Forty percent aimed to describe variation in test ordering and 36% to investigate test performance. Renal function tests (35%), HbA1c (23%) and lipids (17%) were the most studied laboratory tests. Most studies applied a cohort design using routinely collected health care data (49%). We found gaps in research on strategies to optimize test use to improve patient outcomes, optimal testing intervals and patient harms caused by over-testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research needs to address these gaps in evidence. High-level evidence is missing, i.e. randomized controlled trials comparing one monitoring strategy to another or quasi-experimental designs such as interrupted time series analysis if trials are not feasible.

Twenty-five years of accomplishments of the College of American Pathologists Q-probes program for clinical pathology

CONTEXT

During the past 25 years, the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) Q-Probes program has been available as a subscription program to teach laboratorians how to improve the quality of clinical laboratory services.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accomplishments of the CAP Q-Probes program.

DESIGN

We reviewed Q-Probes participant information, study data and conclusions, author information, and program accomplishments.

RESULTS

During this time 117 Q-Probes clinical pathology studies were conducted by 54 authors and coauthors, 42,899 laboratories enrolled from 24 countries, 98 peer-reviewed publications occurred and were cited more than 1600 times, and the studies were featured 59 times in CAP Today. The most frequent studies (19) focused on turnaround times for results or products at specific locations (emergency department, operating room, inpatients, outpatients), specific diseases (acute myocardial infarction, urinary tract), availability for specific events such as morning rounds or surgery, a specific result (positive blood cultures), and a method on how to use data for improvement (stat test outliers). Percentile ranking of study participants with better performance provided benchmarks for each study with attributes statistically defined that influenced improved performance. Other programs, such as an ongoing quality improvement program (Q-Tracks), a laboratory competency assessment program, a pathologist certification program, and an ongoing physician practice evaluation program (Evalumetrics), have been developed from Q-Probes studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAP's Q-Probes program has made significant contributions to the medical literature and has developed a worldwide reputation for improving the quality of clinical pathology services worldwide.