Electronic alerts and a care bundle for acute kidney injury-an Australian cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition of hospital-acquired acute kidney injury (AKI) may improve patient management and outcomes. METHODS: This multicentre study was conducted at three hospitals (H1-intervention; H2 and H3-controls) served by a single laboratory. The intervention bundle [an interruptive automated alerts (aAlerts) showing AKI stage and baseline creatinine in the eMR, a management guide and junior medical staff education] was implemented only at H1. Outcome variables included length-of-stay (LOS), all-cause in-hospital mortality and management quality. RESULTS: Over 6 months, 639 patients developed AKI (265 at H1 and 374 at controls), with 94.7% in general wards; 537 (84%) patients developed Stage 1, 58 (9%) Stage 2 and 43 (7%) Stage 3 AKI. Median LOS was 9 days (IQR 4-17) and was not different between intervention and controls. However, patients with AKI stage 1 had shorter LOS at H1 [median 8 versus 10 days (P = 0.021)]. Serum creatinine had risen prior to admission in most patients. Documentation of AKI was better in H1 (94.8% versus 83.4%; P = 0.001), with higher rates of nephrology consultation (25% versus 19%; P = 0.04) and cessation of nephrotoxins (25.3 versus 18.8%; P = 0.045). There was no difference in mortality between H1 versus controls (11.7% versus 13.0%; P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitalized patients developed Stage 1 AKI and developed AKI in the community and remained outside the intensive care unit (ICU). The AKI eAlert bundle reduced LOS in most patients with AKI and increased AKI documentation, nephrology consultation rate and cessation of nephrotoxic medications.

Simulations found within-subject measurement variation in glycaemic measures may cause overdiagnosis of prediabetes and diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of test measurement variation on misclassification of prediabetes and diabetes in the US adult population. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data from adults with no prior diagnosis of diabetes in the 2015 to 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were used to simulate populations of US adults eligible for screening. Estimates of measurement variation were applied to each simulated individual's true values to generate observed values for up to five repeated screens. RESULTS: UNDERDIAGNOSIS: For 100,000 people assessed according to ADA or USPSTF guidelines, no people with true values in the diabetes range would be underdiagnosed as normal after one screen, and between 64 and 138 people would be misclassified with prediabetes after five re-screens (depending on guideline and test used). OVERDIAGNOSIS: For 100,000 people assessed according to the guidelines, between 1,602 and 2,233 people with true values in the normal range would be over diagnosed with prediabetes after 3 re-screens. A further 627 to 1,672 people with true values in the prediabetes range would be over diagnosed with diabetes after 5 re-screens. CONCLUSION: Measurement variation may cause overdiagnosis of prediabetes and diabetes, as well as apparent "progression" or "regression" of either condition.

From evidence to best practice in laboratory medicine.

Laboratory tests offer value if they provide benefit to patients at acceptable costs. Laboratory testing is one of the most widely used diagnostic interventions supporting medical decisions, yet evidence demonstrating its value and impact on health outcomes is limited. This contributes to wide variations in test utilisation including underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis, which may impact the quality and the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care and patient safety. Therefore implementing evidence into the care of patients is a moral and social imperative to laboratory professionals and all health care staff. This review investigates the reasons research does not get into practice, or only does with a very long delay. Apart from reviewing the common barriers to implementation, it also discusses the drivers of inappropriate test utilisation. By reviewing the theoretical and practical aspects of implementation science, recommendations are made for approaches that are thought to be most effective and that can be adopted to close the gap between evidence and practice, and to facilitate evidence-based laboratory medicine. Passive dissemination of the evidence and educational interventions are insufficient and do not offer sustainable solutions. A multifaceted and individualised implementation strategy, including individually tailored academic detailing, reminder systems, clinical decision support systems, feedback on performance, and participation of doctors and laboratory professionals in quality improvement activities addressing test selection and interpretation and in clinical audits, has greater potential for success. Examples of these initiatives at the laboratory and clinical interface are provided with links to valuable resources.

Accreditation of medical laboratories in the European Union.

BACKGROUND: Using a questionnaire, the EC4 (European Communities Confederation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine) has collated an inventory of the accreditation procedures for medical laboratories in the EU. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Accreditation of medical laboratories in the countries of the EU is mostly carried out in cooperation with national accreditation bodies. These national accreditation bodies work together in a regional cooperation, the European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA). Professionals are trained to become assessors and play a prominent role in the accreditation process. The extent of the training is diverse, but assessors are kept informed and up-to-date by annual meetings. The frequency of assessments and surveillance visits differs from country to country and ranges from 1 to 4 years. More harmonisation is needed in this respect, based on a frequency that can be pragmatically handled by laboratory professionals. In the majority of EA bodies, accreditation is carried out on a test-by-test basis. Many professionals would prefer accreditation of the entire service provided within the actual field of testing (i.e., haematology, immunology, etc.), with accreditation granted if the majority of tests offered within a service field fulfil the requirements of the ISO 15189 standard. The scope of accreditation is a major point of discussions between the EC4 Working Group on Accreditation and representatives of accreditation bodies in the EA Medical Laboratory Committee.