Laboratory medicine best practices: systematic evidence review and evaluation methods for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To develop methods for systematically reviewing evidence for identifying effective laboratory medicine (LM) practices associated with improved healthcare quality outcomes. RELEVANCE: Although many evidence-evaluation systems have been developed, none are designed to include and rate healthcare quality improvement studies to identify evidence-based practices that improve patient safety and LM quality. METHODS: Validated evidence-based medicine methods established by governmental agencies, the Guide to Community Preventive Services, and others were adapted for the LM field. Key methods modifications included (a) inclusion of quality improvement study designs; (b) mechanisms for inclusion of unpublished evidence, (c) combining of individual ratings of study quality, effect size, and relevance of outcome measures to evaluate consistency of practice evidence; and (d) deriving an overall strength rating to support evidence-based best practice recommendations. The methods follow the process steps of: ask; acquire; appraise; analyze; apply; and assess. Expert panels used the systematic evidence review results on practice effectiveness for improving healthcare quality outcomes consistent with the Institute of Medicine's healthcare quality aims (safe, timely, effective, equitable, efficient, and patient-centered). CONCLUSIONS: Adapting and developing methods from validated systems and applying them to systematically review and evaluate practices in LM by using published and unpublished studies is feasible. With these methods, evidence from quality improvement studies can be systematically synthesized and summarized to identify effective LM practices. Practical and scientifically validated demonstration of a positive impact on outcomes ensures that practitioners, policy makers, and decision makers at all levels have the evidence needed for improving healthcare quality and public health.

Clinician perspectives about molecular genetic testing for heritable conditions and development of a clinician-friendly laboratory report.

The use of molecular genetic tests for heritable conditions is expected to increase in medical settings, where genetic knowledge is often limited. As part of a project to improve the clarity of genetic test result reports to minimize misunderstandings that could compromise patient care, we sought input about format and content from practicing primary care clinicians. In facilitated workgroup discussions, clinicians from pediatric, obstetrics-gynecology, and family practice provided their perspectives about molecular genetic testing with a focus on the laboratory reporting of test results. Common principles for enhancing the readability and comprehension of test result reports were derived from these discussions. These principles address the presentation of patient- and test-specific information, the test result interpretation, and guidance for future steps. Model test result reports for DNA-based cystic fibrosis testing are presented that were developed based on workgroup discussions, previous studies, and professional guidelines. The format of these model test reports, which are applicable to a variety of molecular genetic tests, should be useful for communicating essential information from the laboratory to health care professionals.

A brief report of toxicity end points of HER2 vaccines for the treatment of patients with HER2+ breast cancer.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted vaccines are under development, but have so far demonstrated only modest clinical efficacy. Additionally, there has been a lack of adequate safety assessment in large-scale prospective clinical trials. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of available clinical trial data to summarize the toxicity profiles of these treatments. Literature search was conducted in February 2018. The trials analyzed had at least one study arm consisting of HER2 vaccine monotherapy. Heterogeneity across studies was analyzed using I 2 statistics. Data were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis for absolute risk (AR). Eight trials and 248 patients were included. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between studies for grades 3/4 adverse events (AEs) or for death. The AR for treatment-related serious AEs was 5% with no treatment-related deaths. The AR of all-grade fatigue, injection site reaction, and fever/chills/rigors was 33%, 23%, and 31%, respectively. Asymptomatic drop in left ventricle ejection fraction was rare (8%). HER2 vaccines are well tolerated with increased AR of fatigue, injection site reactions, and fever/chills/rigors.

Lipoprotein Biomarkers and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the incremental utility of nontraditional lipid biomarkers [e.g., apolipoprotein (apo) B, apo A-I, and non-HDL-C] in improving cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction when added to a conventional model of traditional risk factors (e.g., total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, sex, age, smoking status, and blood pressure). Here we present a systematic review that was conducted to assess the use of nontraditional lipid biomarkers including apo B, apo A-I, apo B/A-I ratio, and non-HDL-C in improving CVD risk prediction after controlling for the traditional risk factors in populations at risk for cardiovascular events. CONTENT: This systematic review used the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP™) A-6 methods. A total of 9 relevant studies published before and including July 2015 comprised the evidence base for this review. Results from this systematic review indicated that after the adjustment for standard nonlipid and lipid CVD risk factors, nontraditional apolipoprotein biomarkers apo B (overall effect = relative risk: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40; 4 studies) and apo B/apo A-I ratio (overall effect = relative risk: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; 7 studies) resulted in significant improvement in long-term CVD risk assessment. SUMMARY: Available evidence showed that nontraditional lipid biomarkers apo B and apo B/apo I ratio can improve the risk prediction for cardiovascular events after controlling for the traditional risk factors for the populations at risk. However, because of insufficient evidence, no conclusions could be made for the effectiveness of apo A-I and non-HDL-C lipid markers to predict the CVD events, indicating a need for more research in this field.

Treatment-related diarrhea in patients with cancer.

Diarrhea caused by chemotherapy or radiation in patients with cancer can cause dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, malnutrition, fluid depletion, and hospitalization. In severe cases, uncontrolled diarrhea can lead to therapy dose reductions or even death. Oncology professionals may simply assess for the absence or presence of diarrhea, rather than using a standard assessment tool; they also may lack awareness regarding availability of established assessment and treatment guidelines. However, use of treatment guidelines can lead to optimal prevention and management of treatment-induced diarrhea in patients with cancer. Oncology nurses play a key role in the identification and treatment of chemotherapy- and radiation therapy-induced diarrhea.

Effectiveness of practices to reduce blood culture contamination: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This article is a systematic review of the effectiveness of three practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates: venipuncture, phlebotomy teams, and prepackaged preparation/collection (prep) kits. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: Studies included as evidence were: 9 venipuncture (vs. versus intravenous catheter), 5 phlebotomy team; and 7 prep kit. All studies for venipuncture and phlebotomy teams favored these practices, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for venipuncture of 2.69 and phlebotomy teams of 2.58. For prep kits 6 studies' effect sizes were not statistically significantly different from no effect (meta-analysis mean odds ratio 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Venipuncture and the use of phlebotomy teams are effective practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates in diverse hospital settings and are recommended as evidence-based "best practices" with high overall strength of evidence and substantial effect size ratings. No recommendation is made for or against prep kits based on uncertain improvement.

Effectiveness of practices to reduce blood sample hemolysis in EDs: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To complete a systematic review of emergency department (ED) practices for reducing hemolysis in blood samples sent to the clinical laboratory for testing. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies met the review inclusion criteria (12 published and 4 unpublished). All 11 studies comparing new straight needle venipuncture with IV starts found a reduction in hemolysis rates, [average risk ratio of 0.16 (95% CI=0.11-0.24)]. Four studies on the effect of venipuncture location showed reduced hemolysis rates for the antecubital site [average risk ratio of 0.45 (95% CI=0.35-0.57]. CONCLUSIONS: Use of new straight needle venipuncture instead of IV starts is effective at reducing hemolysis rates in EDs, and is recommended as an evidence-based best practice. The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution to the body of evidence. When IV starts must be used, observed rates of hemolysis may be substantially reduced by placing the IV at the antecubital site.

Effectiveness of automated notification and customer service call centers for timely and accurate reporting of critical values: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence available in support of automated notification methods and call centers and to acknowledge other considerations in making evidence-based recommendations for best practices in improving the timeliness and accuracy of critical value reporting. DESIGN AND METHODS: This review followed the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) review methods (Christenson, et al. 2011). A broad literature search and call for unpublished submissions returned 196 bibliographic records which were screened for eligibility. 41 studies were retrieved. Of these, 4 contained credible evidence for the timeliness and accuracy of automatic notification systems and 5 provided credible evidence for call centers for communicating critical value information in in-patient care settings. RESULTS: Studies reporting improvement from implementing automated notification findings report mean differences and were standardized using the standard difference in means (d=0.42; 95% CI=0.2-0.62) while studies reporting improvement from implementing call centers generally reported criterion referenced findings and were standardized using odds ratios (OR=22.1; 95% CI=17.1-28.6). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence, although suggestive, is not sufficient to make an LMBP recommendation for or against using automated notification systems as a best practice to improve the timeliness of critical value reporting in an in-patient care setting. Call centers, however, are effective in improving the timeliness of critical value reporting in an in-patient care setting, and meet LMBP criteria to be recommended as an "evidence-based best practice."

Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: A total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05-6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28-6.67). CONCLUSIONS: Barcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice." The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.