ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities , Humans , Referral and ConsultationABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
