Serum lithium test requesting across three UK regions: an evaluation of adherence to monitoring guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is the fourth most common mental health condition, affecting ~ 1% of UK adults. Lithium is an effective treatment for prevention of relapse and hospital admission, and is widely recommended as a first-line treatment. We previously showed in other areas that laboratory testing patterns are variable with sub-optimal conformity to guidance. We therefore examined lithium results and requesting patterns relative to monitoring recommendations. METHODS: Data on serum lithium levels and intervals between requests were extracted from Clinical Biochemistry laboratory information systems at the University Hospitals of North Midlands, Salford Royal Foundation Trust and Pennine Acute Hospitals from 2012 to 2018 (46,555 requests; 3371 individuals). Data were examined with respect to region/source of request, age and sex. RESULTS: Across all sites, lithium levels on many requests were outside the recommended UK therapeutic range (0.4-0.99 mmol/L); 19.2% below the range and 6.1% above the range (median [Li]: 0.60 mmol/L). A small percentage were found at the extremes (3.2% at < 0.1 mmol/L, 1.0% at ≥1.4 mmol/L). Most requests were from general practice (56.3%) or mental health units (34.4%), though those in the toxic range (≥1.4 mmol/L) were more likely to be from secondary care (63.9%). For requesting intervals, there was a distinct peak at 12 weeks, consistent with guidance for those stabilised on lithium therapy. There was no peak at 6 months, as recommended for those aged < 65 years on unchanging therapy, though re-test intervals in this age group were more likely to be longer. There was a peak at 0-7 days, reflecting those requiring closer monitoring (e.g. treatment initiation, toxicity). However, for those with initial lithium concentrations within the BNF range (0.4-0.99 mmol/L), 69.4% of tests were requested outside expected testing frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed: (a) lithium levels are often maintained at the lower end of the recommended therapeutic range, (b) patterns of lithium results and testing frequency were comparable across three UK sites with differing models of care and, (c) re-test intervals demonstrate a noticeable peak at the recommended 3-monthly, but not at 6-monthly intervals. Many tests were repeated outside expected frequencies, indicating the need for measures to minimise inappropriate testing.

Race/Ethnicity and overuse of care: a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: POLICY POINTS: Racial/ethnic differences in the overuse of care (specifically, unneeded care that does not improve patients' outcomes) have received little scholarly attention. Our systematic review of the literature (59 studies) found that the overuse of care is not invariably associated with race/ethnicity, but when it was, a substantial proportion of studies found greater overuse of care among white patients. The absence of established subject terms in PubMed for the overuse of care or inappropriate care impedes the ability of researchers or policymakers to synthesize prior scientific or policy efforts. CONTEXT: The literature on disparities in health care has examined the contrast between white patients receiving needed care, compared with racial/ethnic minority patients not receiving needed care. Racial/ethnic differences in the overuse of care, that is, unneeded care that does not improve patients' outcomes, have received less attention. We systematically reviewed the literature regarding race/ethnicity and the overuse of care. METHODS: We searched the Medline database for US studies that included at least 2 racial/ethnic groups and that examined the association between race/ethnicity and the overuse of procedures, diagnostic (care) or therapeutic care. In a recent review, we identified studies of overuse by race/ethnicity, and we also examined reference lists of retrieved articles. We then abstracted and evaluated this information, including the population studied, data source, sample size and assembly, type of care, guideline or appropriateness standard, controls for clinical confounding and financing of care, and findings. FINDINGS: We identified 59 unique studies, of which 11 had a low risk of methodological bias. Studies with multiple outcomes were counted more than once; collectively they assessed 74 different outcomes. Thirty-two studies, 6 with low risks of bias (LRoB), provided evidence that whites received more inappropriate or nonrecommended care than racial/ethnic minorities did. Nine studies (2 LRoB) found evidence of more overuse of care by minorities than by whites. Thirty-three studies (6 LRoB) found no relationship between race/ethnicity and overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overuse of care is not invariably associated with race/ethnicity, when it was, a substantial proportion of studies found greater overuse of care among white patients. Clinicians and researchers should try to understand how and why race/ethnicity might be associated with overuse and to intervene to reduce it.

Establishing benchmarks and metrics for disruptive technologies, inappropriate and obsolete tests in the clinical laboratory.

Benchmarks and metrics related to laboratory test utilization are based on evidence-based medical literature that may suffer from a positive publication bias. Guidelines are only as good as the data reviewed to create them. Disruptive technologies require time for appropriate use to be established before utilization review will be meaningful. Metrics include monitoring the use of obsolete tests and the inappropriate use of lab tests. Test utilization by clients in a hospital outreach program can be used to monitor the impact of new clients on lab workload. A multi-disciplinary laboratory utilization committee is the most effective tool for modifying bad habits, and reviewing and approving new tests for the lab formulary or by sending them out to a reference lab.

Inappropriately repeated lipid tests in a tertiary hospital in Greece: the magnitude and cost of the phenomenon.

BACKGROUND: Demand and costs of laboratory testing are increasing worldwide. It seems that a considerable proportion of the tests requested do not follow the published guidelines. Tests comprising the lipid profile are advised for the entire population, as determinants of cardiovascular risk. Published guidelines exist for different groups of the population. This study is an attempt to assess the volume and the cost of the excessive demand for laboratory measurements of lipids concerning inpatients of a tertiary teaching hospital in Athens, Greece. METHODS: Tests were characterized as inappropriate through revision of guidelines for lipid measurement. The demand for laboratory measurement of lipid blood levels was studied by collecting data from the hospital's test result database. The study was conducted during the trimester October to December 2008 and 20,698 tests from 3,279 inpatients were reviewed+9. RESULTS: The results of this study are consistent with international observations showing a significant percentage of clinically inappropriate laboratory tests and the consequent financial burden. The inappropriately repeated lipid tests during the trimester reached the number of 7,938 costing € 12,680 to the hospital. Almost half of the inpatients were tested more than twice a month. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' behavior is an important factor, as is derived by certain profiles of the wards studied. Guidelines are not followed when ordering lipid tests. Curtailing of these excessive laboratory tests has been shown to be feasible using cheap strategies and will yield considerable benefits for patients and hospitals alike.