Re-Purposing the Ordering of Routine Laboratory Tests in Hospitalized Medical Patients (RePORT): protocol for a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial to evaluate the impact of a multicomponent intervention bundle to reduce laboratory test over-utilization.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory test overuse in hospitals is a form of healthcare waste that also harms patients. Developing and evaluating interventions to reduce this form of healthcare waste is critical. We detail the protocol for our study which aims to implement and evaluate the impact of an evidence-based, multicomponent intervention bundle on repetitive use of routine laboratory testing in hospitalized medical patients across adult hospitals in the province of British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: We have designed a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial to assess the impact of a multicomponent intervention bundle across 16 hospitals in the province of British Columbia in Canada. We will use the Knowledge to Action cycle to guide implementation and the RE-AIM framework to guide evaluation of the intervention bundle. The primary outcome will be the number of routine laboratory tests ordered per patient-day in the intervention versus control periods. Secondary outcome measures will assess implementation fidelity, number of all common laboratory tests used, impact on healthcare costs, and safety outcomes. The study will include patients admitted to adult medical wards (internal medicine or family medicine) and healthcare providers working in these wards within the participating hospitals. After a baseline period of 24 weeks, we will conduct a 16-week pilot at one hospital site. A new cluster (containing approximately 2-3 hospitals) will receive the intervention every 12 weeks. We will evaluate the sustainability of implementation at 24 weeks post implementation of the final cluster. Using intention to treat, we will use generalized linear mixed models for analysis to evaluate the impact of the intervention on outcomes. DISCUSSION: The study builds upon a multicomponent intervention bundle that has previously demonstrated effectiveness. The elements of the intervention bundle are easily adaptable to other settings, facilitating future adoption in wider contexts. The study outputs are expected to have a positive impact as they will reduce usage of repetitive laboratory tests and provide empirically supported measures and tools for accomplishing this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on April 8, 2024, via ClinicalTrials.gov Protocols Registration and Results System (NCT06359587). https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT06359587?term=NCT06359587&recrs=ab&draw=2&rank=1.

Repurposing the Ordering of Routine Laboratory Tests in Hospitalised Medical Patients (RePORT): results of a cluster randomised stepped-wedge quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value use of laboratory tests is a global challenge. Our objective was to evaluate an intervention bundle to reduce repetitive use of routine laboratory testing in hospitalised patients. METHODS: We used a stepped-wedge design to implement an intervention bundle across eight medical units. Our intervention included educational tools and social comparison reports followed by peer-facilitated report discussion sessions. The study spanned October 2020-June 2021, divided into control, feasibility testing, intervention and a follow-up period. The primary outcomes were the number and costs of routine laboratory tests ordered per patient-day. We used generalised linear mixed models, and analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: We included a total of 125 854 patient-days. Patient groups were similar in age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and length of stay during the control, intervention and follow-up periods. From the control to the follow-up period, there was a 14% (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92) overall reduction in ordering of routine tests with the intervention, along with a 14% (ß coefficient=-0.14, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.21) reduction in costs of routine testing. This amounted to a total cost savings of $C1.15 per patient-day. There was also a 15% (IRR=0.85, 95% CI 0.79, 0.92) reduction in ordering of all common tests with the intervention and a 20% (IRR=1.20, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.30) increase in routine test-free patient-days. No worsening was noted in patient safety endpoints with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention bundle using education and facilitated multilevel social comparison was associated with a safe and effective reduction in use of routine daily laboratory testing in hospitals. Further research is needed to understand how system-level interventions may increase this effect and which intervention elements are necessary to sustain results.

Acute severe hepatitis as a presenting symptom in clinically stable patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection.

BACKGROUND: Suggested mechanisms for SARS-CoV-2 direct liver infection have been proposed by others to involve both cholangiocytes and hepatocytes. Early clinical studies have highlighted abnormal liver biochemistry with COVID-19 infection as often not being severe, with elevated liver enzymes <5X the upper limit of normal. METHODS: Liver enzymes were evaluated and compared in patients admitted with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in a deidentified Internal Medicine-Medical Teaching Unit/hospitalist admission laboratory database. Comparisons in the incidence of severe liver injury (alanine aminotransferase >10 times upper limit of normal) were made for patients with pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 (November 30, 2019, to December 15, 2021) and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 (December 15, 2021, to April 15, 2022). Comprehensive hospital health records were also reviewed for the 2 patient cases discussed. One patient had a liver biopsy that was evaluated with H&E and immunohistochemistry staining using an antibody against COVID-19 spike protein. RESULTS: The evaluation of a deidentified admissions laboratory database found the incidence of severe liver injury was 0.42% with Omicron versus 0.30% with pre-Omicron variants of COVID-19. In both patient cases discussed, abnormal liver biochemistry and a negative comprehensive workup strongly suggest COVID-19 as the cause of severe liver injury. In the one patient with liver biopsy, immunohistochemistry staining suggests SARS-CoV-2 presence in the portal and lobular spaces in association with immune cell infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 should be considered in the differential diagnosis of severe acute liver injury. Our observation suggests that this new variant, either through direct liver infection and/or mediating immune dysfunction, can result in severe liver injury.

Association between physician continuity of care and patient outcomes in clinical teaching units: a cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based clinical teaching units (CTUs) are supervised by rotating attending physicians. Physician hand-offs in other contexts have been associated with worse patient outcomes, presumably through communication gaps. We aimed to determine the association between attending physician hand-offs on CTUs and patient outcomes including escalation of care, readmission and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicentre cohort study using data from 3 tertiary care hospitals in Calgary between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2017. We included hospital admissions in the top 10 case-mix groups. Our exposure variable was the number of attending physicians seen by a patient. Outcome measures were admission to intensive care unit (ICU); inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality; and 7- and 30-day readmission rate. We used multivariable regression statistical models adjusted for patient age, sex, length of stay, Charlson Comorbidity Index, case-mix groups, senior resident presence, team handovers and team transfers. RESULTS: Our cohort included 4324 unique patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of admission to ICU, inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality, and 7- and 30-day readmission rates among 1 or 2 physicians. However, we noted a significant increase in 30-day readmission rate (IRR 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.78) in patients who had 3 or more attending physicians compared with those who had 1 attending physician. INTERPRETATION: We found that 2 or more physician hand-offs on CTUs had a modestly greater association with patient readmission at 30 days. More research is needed to explore this finding and to evaluate associated patient and resource outcomes with physician hand-offs.