The Impact of a Standardized Pre-visit Laboratory Testing Panel in the Internal Medicine Outpatient Clinic: a Controlled "On-Off" Trial.

BACKGROUND: In several settings, a shorter time to diagnosis has been shown to lead to improved clinical outcomes. The implementation of a rapid laboratory testing allows for a pre-visit testing in the outpatient clinic, meaning that test results are available during the first outpatient visit. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the pre-visit laboratory testing leads to a shorter time to diagnosis in the general internal medicine outpatient clinic. DESIGN: An "on-off" trial, allocating subjects to one of two treatment arms in consecutive alternating blocks. PARTICIPANTS: All new referrals to the internal medicine outpatient clinic of a university hospital were included, excluding second opinions. A total of 595 patients were eligible; one person declined to participate, leaving data from 594 patients for analysis. INTERVENTION: In the intervention group, patients had a standardized pre-visit laboratory testing before the first visit. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the time to diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were the correctness of the preliminary diagnosis on the first day, health care utilization, and patient and physician satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: There was no difference in time to diagnosis between the two groups (median 35 days vs 35 days; hazard ratio 1.03 [0.87-1.22]; p = .71). The pre-visit testing group had higher proportions of both correct preliminary diagnoses on day 1 (24% vs 14%; p = .003) and diagnostic workups being completed on day 1 (10% vs 3%; p < .001). The intervention group had more laboratory tests done (50.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 39.0-69.0] vs 43.0 [IQR 31.0-68.5]; p < .001). Otherwise, there were no differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-visit testing did not lead to a shorter overall time to diagnosis. However, a greater proportion of patients had a correct diagnosis on the first day. Further studies should focus on customizing pre-visit laboratory panels, to improve their efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL5009.

Prognostic models versus single risk factor approach in first-trimester selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective population-based multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1) first-trimester prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) outperform the currently used single risk factor approach, and (2) a first-trimester random venous glucose measurement improves model performance. DESIGN: Prospective population-based multicentre cohort. SETTING: Thirty-one independent midwifery practices and six hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women recruited before 14 weeks of gestation without pre-existing diabetes. METHODS: The single risk factor approach (presence of at least one risk factor: BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , previous macrosomia, history of GDM, positive first-degree family history of diabetes, non-western ethnicity) was compared with the four best performing models in our previously published external validation study (Gabbay-Benziv 2014, Nanda 2011, Teede 2011, van Leeuwen 2010) with and without the addition of glucose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination was assessed by c-statistics, calibration by calibration plots, added value of glucose by the likelihood ratio chi-square test, net benefit by decision curve analysis and reclassification by reclassification plots. RESULTS: Of the 3723 women included, a total of 181 (4.9%) developed GDM. The c-statistics of the prognostic models were higher, ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 without glucose and from 0.78 to 0.80 with glucose, compared with the single risk factor approach (0.72). Models showed adequate calibration, and yielded a higher net benefit than the single risk factor approach for most threshold probabilities. Teede 2011 performed best in the reclassification analysis. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for GDM, particularly when glucose was added as a predictor. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for gestational diabetes.

Effects of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban on child outcome: follow-up of the APOSTEL III trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term effects of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban on child outcome at age 2.5-5.5 years. DESIGN: The APOSTEL III trial was a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban in 503 women with threatened preterm birth. Neonatal outcomes did not differ between both treatment arms, except for a higher incidence of intubation in the atosiban group. METHODS: Parents were asked to complete four questionnaires regarding neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour problems and general health. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main long-term outcome measure was a composite of abnormal development at the age of 2.5-5.5 years. RESULTS: Of the 426 women eligible for follow-up, 196 (46%) parents returned the questionnaires for 115 children in the nifedipine group and 110 children in the atosiban group. Abnormal development occurred in 32 children (30%) in the nifedipine group and in 38 children (38%) in the atosiban group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.34). The separate outcomes for neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour, and general health showed no significant differences between the groups. Sensitivity analysis for all children of the APOSTEL III trial, including a comparison of deceased children, resulted in a higher rate of healthy survival in the nifedipine group (64 versus 54%), but there was no significant difference in the overall mortality rate (5.4 versus 2.7%). There were no significant subgroup effects. CONCLUSION: Outcomes on broad child neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour and general health were comparable in both groups. Neither nifedipine nor atosiban can be considered as the preferred treatment for women with threatened preterm birth. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Nifedipine- and atosiban-exposed children had comparable long-term outcomes, including neurodevelopment, executive function and behaviour.

Exploring the value of routinely measured hematology parameters for identification of elderly patients at high risk of death at the Emergency Department.

Of the warning scores in use for recognition of high-risk patients at the Emergency Department (ED), few incorporate laboratory results. Although hematological characteristics have shown prognostic value in small studies, large studies in elderly ED populations are lacking. We studied the association between blood cell and platelet counts and characteristics as well as C-reactive protein (CRP) at ED presentation with mortality in non-multitrauma patients ≥ 65 years. Comparison between survivors and non-survivors showed small, significant differences with AUROCs ranging between 56.6% and 65.2% for 30-day mortality. Combining parameters yielded an evident improvement (AUROC of 70.4%). Efforts should be pursued to study the added value of hematological parameters on top of clinical data when assessing patient risk.

Barriers and facilitators to reduce low-value care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. DESIGN: A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context. RESULTS: We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

Inappropriate laboratory testing in internal medicine inpatients: Prevalence, causes and interventions.

BACKGROUND: To reduce overutilization of laboratory testing many interventions have been tried, but selecting the most effective intervention for a given setting is challenging. To be sustainable, interventions need to align with healthcare providers' needs and daily practices. This study aimed to assess the extent of overutilization and the perspectives of healthcare providers, which may be used to guide the choice of intervention. METHODS: The extent of inappropriate laboratory testing in internal medicine inpatients was evaluated using a database. Surveys and focus groups were used to investigate healthcare providers' perceptions on its causes and solutions. RESULTS: On average, patients had 5.7 laboratory orders done during the first week of admission, whereas guidelines advise performing laboratory testing no more than twice per week. Repeat testing of normal test results occurred in up to 85% of patients. The frequency of laboratory testing was underestimated by survey responders, even though the majority of responders (78%) thought that laboratory tests are ordered too frequently. Residents were considered to be most responsible for laboratory test ordering.The primary causes of overutilization discussed were personal factors, such as a lack of awareness and knowledge, as well as feelings of insecurity. Regarding possible solutions, residents generally recommended educational interventions, whereas specialists tended to favour technical solutions such as lockouts. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate laboratory testing is common in internal medicine. The most important causes are a lack of awareness and knowledge, especially in residents. The intervention most favoured by residents is education, suggesting educational interventions may be most applicable.

Ketonuria is not associated with hyperemesis gravidarum disease severity.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between ketonuria and hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) disease severity. STUDY DESIGN: We included pregnant women hospitalised for HG who participated in the Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding (MOTHER) trial and women who were eligible, chose not to be randomised and agreed to participate in the observational cohort. Between October 2013 and March 2016, in 19 hospitals in the Netherlands, women hospitalised for HG were approached for study participation. The presence of ketonuria was not required for study entry. Ketonuria was measured at hospital admission with a dipstick, which distinguishes 5 categories: negative and 1+ through 4 + . The outcome measures were multiple measures of HG disease severity at different time points: 1) At hospital admission (study entry): severity of nausea and vomiting, quality of life and weight change compared to pre-pregnancy weight, 2) One week after hospital admission: severity of nausea and vomiting, quality of life and weight change compared to admission, 3) Duration of index hospital admission and readmission for HG at any time point RESULTS: 215 women where included. Ketonuria was not associated with severity of nausea and vomiting, quality of life or weight loss at hospital admission, nor was the degree of ketonuria at admission associated with any of the outcomes 1 week after hospital admission. The degree of ketonuria was also not associated with the number of readmissions. However, women with a higher degree of ketonuria had a statistically significant longer duration of hospital stay (per 1+ ketonuria, difference: 0.27 days, 95 % CI: 0.05 to 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between the degree of ketonuria at admission and severity of symptoms, quality of life, maternal weight loss, or number of readmissions, suggesting that ketonuria provides no information about disease severity or disease course. Despite this, women with a higher degree of ketonuria at admission were hospitalised for longer. This could suggest that health care professionals base length of hospital stay on the degree of ketonuria. Based on the lack of association between ketonuria and disease severity, we suggest it has no additional value in the clinical management of HG.