General practitioners' assessment of interventions applied to optimize laboratory test utilization: a cross-sectional survey study.

General practitioners (GPs) in the Region of Southern Denmark were randomly allocated to a range of interventions to optimize their use of Vitamin D tests over one year. The aim of the current survey study was to investigate GPs assessment of the interventions. Using REDCap web-platform, we invited 638 GPs to participate in a survey about their experiences of guidelines, feedback reports, non-interruptive alerts, and interruptive alerts. The questions were customized for the different interventions. We received responses from only 131 GPs (21%), but no differences in gender, age, or type of GP clinic were observed between responders and invited GPs. Approximately half of the GPs found that guidelines were helpful, and a similar proportion of GPs read the feedback reports 'often' or 'always'. The pop-up alerts were accepted when used for maximum three months for often-used tests. In contrast, alerts were accepted for long periods for rarely-used tests. The groups that were exposed to the interruptive alert found it 'problematic' that it appeared every time vitamin D was requested. Guidelines and feedback reports on tests numbers were accepted, but it was previously found, that they had little effect on improving the use of biochemical tests. Pop-up alerts in the requesting IT system can produce alert fatigue. Future research should focus on developing feedback reports that - when possible - also include relevant clinical information, and pop-up alerts should for often used tests be displayed only for weeks or a few months, but can be repeated.

A randomized controlled study of biochemical tests in primary care: interventions can reduce the number of tests but usage does not become more appropriate.

OBJECTIVES: The use of laboratory tests increases worldwide, and to some extent their use is likely to be inappropriate. Although primary care is responsible for a substantial proportion of requests, this sector is less extensively investigated than hospitals. METHODS: We tested the effect of six combinations of four interventions applied to 313 primary care clinics, using vitamin D as model test (253,762 vitamin D results). We evaluated the changes in test numbers in the six intervention groups compared to the control group, and whether interventions resulted in more homogenous test use within groups or affected the distribution of test results. All interventions included information on vitamin D testing guidelines. Four groups were exposed to a non-interruptive alert in the ordering IT-system and in two groups this was supplemented by an interruptive alert. Half of the groups received monthly feedback reports. RESULTS: Application of alerts, irrespective of the combination with feedback reports, resulted in significantly reduced test numbers (maximum -46%). Guidelines either alone or combined with feedback reports did not cause significant difference from the control group. The within-group requesting pattern changed significantly for only two of the groups. The distribution of low and normal vitamin D results within groups showed no signs of more appropriate use of the test in any of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the interventions reduced the number of tests, but there were no indications of improved adherence to the guidelines. The interventions may have led to under-utilization of the test and thus should be used with care.

A proposed Common Training Framework for Specialists in Laboratory Medicine under EU Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional Qualifications).

European Union (EU) Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional Qualifications) allows Member States to decide on a common set of minimum knowledge, skills and competences that are needed to pursue a given profession through a Common Training Framework. To be adopted the framework must combine the knowledge, skills and competences of at least one third of the Member States. Professionals who have gained their qualifications under a Common Training Framework will be able to have these recognised automatically within the Union. The backbone of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine's (EFLM) proposed Common Training Framework for non-medical Specialists in Laboratory Medicine is outlined here. It is based on an Equivalence of Standards in education, training, qualifications, knowledge, skills, competences and the professional conduct associated with specialist practice. In proposing the recognition of specialist practice EFLM has identified 15 EU Member States able to meet Equivalence and in whom the profession and/or its training is regulated (an additional EU Commission requirement). The framework supports and contributes to the Directive's enabling goals for increasing professional mobility, safeguarding consumers and ensuring a more equitable distribution of skills and expertise across the Member States. It represents EFLM's position statement and provides a template for professional societies and/or competent authorities to engage with the EU Commission.

The impact of interventions applied in primary care to optimize the use of laboratory tests: a systematic review.

Laboratory tests are important tools in primary care, but their use is sometimes inappropriate. The aim of this review is to give an overview of interventions applied in primary care to optimize the use of laboratory tests. A search for studies was made in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We also extracted studies from two previous reviews published in 2015. Studies were included if they described application of an intervention aiming to optimize the use of laboratory tests. We also evaluated the overall risk of bias of the studies. We included 24 studies. The interventions were categorized as: education, feedback reports and computerized physician order entry (CPOE) strategies. Most of the studies were classified as medium or high risk of bias while only three studies were evaluated as low risk of bias. The majority of the studies aimed at reducing the number of tests, while four studies investigated interventions aiming to increase the use of specific tests. Despite the studies being heterogeneous, we made results comparable by transforming the results into weighted relative changes in number of tests when necessary. Education changed the number of tests consistently, and these results were supported by the low risk of bias of the papers. Feedback reports have mainly been applied in combination with education, while when used alone the effect was minimal. The use of CPOE strategies seem to produce a marked change in the number of test requests, however the studies were of medium or high risk of bias.

Detection of free intraperitoneal tumour cells in peritoneal lavage fluid from patients with peritoneal metastasis before and after treatment with pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

AIMS: In this study, we investigated whether free intraperitoneal tumour cells (FITC) were detectable in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid (PLF) from patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) before and after treatment with pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). METHODS: Ascites or PLF retrieved at the first and third PIPAC procedures was analysed by conventional cytology, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and total protein concentration, and quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) for mRNA expression of CEA, epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). Conventional cytology and qRT-PCR were also performed in a negative control group (benign PLF specimens and inflammatory ascites). The treatment response was compared with the histological response based on repeated peritoneal biopsies evaluated by the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with PM of various origins were included from 2015 to 2016. At the first PIPAC procedure, FITC were detected by conventional cytology (sensitivity 0.58, specificity 1.00), CEA protein (cut-off 0.4 µg/L, sensitivity 0.71), CEA mRNA (sensitivity 0.75, specificity 1.00), EpCAM mRNA (sensitivity 0.71, specificity 1.00) and CA-125 mRNA (sensitivity 0.43, specificity 1.00). The combination of CEA/EpCAM mRNA had a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 1.00. The evaluation of ascites or PLF retrieved at the third PIPAC procedure failed to detect treatment response, when compared with the histological PRGS. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of CEA and EpCAM mRNA detects FITC with a high sensitivity and an excellent specificity, but is not useful for response evaluation in patients treated with PIPAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02320448.