"Send & hold" clinical decision support rules improvement to reduce unnecessary testing of vitamins A, E, K, B1, B2, B3, B6 and C.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the impact of several "send & hold" clinical decision support rules (CDSRs) within the electronical request system for vitamins A, E, K, B1, B2, B3, B6 and C for all outpatients at a large health department. METHODS: When ordered through electronical request, providers (except for all our primary care physicians who worked as a non-intervention control group) were always asked to answer several compulsory questions regarding main indication, symptomatology, suspected diagnosis, vitamin active treatments, etc., for each vitamin test using a drop-down list format. After samples arrival, tests were later put on hold internally by our laboratory information system (LIS) until review for their appropriateness was made by two staff pathologists according to the provided answers and LIS records (i.e. "send & hold"). The number of tests for each analyte was compared between the 10-month period before and after CDSRs implementation in both groups. RESULTS: After implementation, vitamins test volumes decreased by 40% for vitamin A, 29% for vitamin E, 42% for vitamin K, 37% for vitamin B1, 85% for vitamin B2, 68% for vitamin B3, 65% for vitamin B6 and 59% for vitamin C (all p values 0.03 or lower except for vitamin B3), whereas in control group, the majority increased or remained stable. In patients with rejected vitamins, no new requests and/or adverse clinical outcome comments due to this fact were identified. CONCLUSIONS: "Send & hold" CDSRs are a promising informatics tool that can support in utilization management and enhance the pathologist's leadership role as tests specialist.

Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact.

BACKGROUND: Failure to follow-up laboratory test results has been described as one of the major processes contributing to unsafe patient care. Currently, most of the laboratories do not know with certainty not only their rate of missed (or unreviewed) requests but the economical cost and impact that this issue implies. The aim of our study was to measure that rate and calculate the resulting costs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In January 2015, we checked in our Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for every emergency request from 1(st) July 2011 to 30(th) June 2014, if they had been reviewed by any allowed user or not. 319,064 requests were ordered during that period of time. Results were expressed as "ordered requests", "missed requests" and its percentage. Additionally, total cost of missed requests was calculated in euros (€). "Non-productive days" were theorised (as the days producing requests that were not reviewed) based on these results. RESULTS: 7924 requests (2.5%) were never reviewed by clinicians. This represented a total cost of 203,039 € and 27 "non-productive" days in three years. Significant differences between inpatients, outpatients and emergency department as well as different emergencies units were found after application of statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of resources, never reviewed or missed requests appear to be a not negligible problem for the clinical laboratory management. Electronic result delivery, with electronic endorsement to indicate follow-up of requests along with better systems of electronic requesting should be investigated as a way of improving patient outcomes and save unnecessary expenses.

Comentarios a «La exposición a plaguicidas se asocia con la disminución del recuento espermático» / Comments on "Pesticida exposure and decreased spermcount"

No disponible

No disponible