Association of a Multifaceted Intervention With Ordering of Unnecessary Laboratory Tests Among Caregivers in Internal Medicine Departments.

Importance: Inappropriate use of laboratory testing is a challenging problem. Estimated overuse rates of approximately 20% have been reported. Effective, sustainable solutions to stimulate optimal use are needed. Objective: To determine the association of a multifaceted intervention with laboratory test volume. Design, Setting, and Participants: A before-after quality improvement study was performed between August 1, 2016, and April 30, 2018, in the internal medicine departments of 4 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Data on laboratory order volumes from 19 comparable hospitals were used as controls. The participants were clinicians ordering laboratory tests. Interventions: The intervention included creating awareness through education and feedback, intensified supervision of residents, and changes in order entry systems. Interventions were performed by local project teams and guided by a central project team during a 6-month period. Sustainability was investigated during an 8-month follow-up period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in slope for laboratory test volume. Secondary outcomes were change in slope for laboratory expenditure, order volumes and expenditure for other diagnostic procedures, and clinical outcomes. Data were collected on duration of hospital stay, rate of repeated outpatient visits, 30-day readmission rate, and rate of unexpected prolonged duration of hospital stay for patients admitted for pneumonia. Results: The numbers of internists and residents ordering tests in hospitals 1 to 4 were 16 and 30, 18 and 20, 13 and 17, and 21 and 60, respectively. Statistically significant changes in slope for laboratory test volume per patient contact were found at hospital 1 (change in slope, -1.55; 95% CI, -1.98 to -1.11; P < .001), hospital 3 (change in slope, -0.74; 95% CI, -1.42 to -0.07; P = .03), and hospital 4 (change in slope, -2.18; 95% CI, -3.27 to -1.08; P < .001). At hospital 2, the change in slope was not statistically significant (-0.34; 95% CI, -2.27 to 1.58; P = .73). Laboratory test volume per patient contact decreased by 11.4%, whereas the volume increased by 2.4% in 19 comparable hospitals. Statistically significant changes in slopes for laboratory costs and volumes and costs for other diagnostic procedures were also observed. Clinical outcomes were not associated with negative changes. Important facilitators were education, continuous attention for overuse, feedback, and residents' involvement. Important barriers were difficulties in data retrieval, difficulty in incorporation of principles in daily practice, and high resident turnover. Conclusions and relevance: A set of interventions aimed at changing caregivers' mindset was associated with a reduction in the laboratory test volume in all departments, whereas the volume increased in comparable hospitals in the Netherlands. This study provides a framework for nationwide implementation of interventions to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing.

Epidemiology of Sepsis and Its Recognition by Emergency Medical Services Personnel in the Netherlands.

Little is known about the epidemiology of sepsis in the Netherlands. In addition, information regarding the ability of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to recognize sepsis is lacking. The aim of this study is to determine epidemiological characteristics of sepsis and the recognition of sepsis by EMS personnel in an urban area in the Netherlands. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using transport information from EMS Amsterdam and admission diagnoses at the emergency department gathered through discharge data from two academic hospitals in Amsterdam for the year 2012. A total of 253 patients with sepsis were evaluated, of which 131 were transported by ambulance. The in-hospital mortality rate of the total population was 21% and a mean length of hospital stay was of 13.5 days. Sixty-seven patients (26.5%) were admitted to the intensive care unit. Almost half of the patients were assigned to the internal medicine ward (117; 46.2%). The most common site of infection was the urinary tract (30%). E. coli was the most frequent cause of infections. EMS staff recognized 18/131 (13.7%) transported patients with (severe) sepsis or septic shock. In 52 cases (39.7%) sepsis went unrecognized, probably due to an incomplete primary survey. In 60 cases (45.8%) sepsis went unrecognized, although enough systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were present at initial presentation. Recognition of sepsis by EMS staff in the Netherlands is low, probably due to a lack of awareness of the syndrome and infrequent measurement of temperature and respiratory rate. As early initiation of treatment is crucial, the EMS staff, general practitioners, and other specialties could benefit from more education on this critical illness.