Abstract
Background: Modern computer systems allow limits to be set on the periods allowed for repetitive testing. We investigated a computerised system for managing potentially overtly frequent laboratory testing, calculating the financial savings obtained.
Methods: In consultation with hospital physicians, tests were selected for which ‘spare periods’ (periods during which tests are barred) might be set to control repetitive testing. The tests were selected and spare periods determined based on known analyte variations in health and disease, variety of tissues or cells giving rise to analytes, clinical conditions and rate of change determining analyte levels, frequency with which doctors need information about the analytes and the logistical needs of the clinic.
Results: The operation and acceptance of the system was explored with 23 analytes. Frequency filtering was subsequently introduced for 44 tests, each with their own spare periods. The proportion of tests barred was 0.56%, the most frequent of these being for total cholesterol, uric acid and HDL-cholesterol. The financial savings were 0.33% of the costs of all testing, with HbA1c, HDL-cholesterol and vitamin B12 yielding the largest savings. Following the introduction of the system the number of barred tests ultimately decreased, suggesting accommodation by the test requestors.
Conclusions: Managing laboratory testing through computerised limits to prevent overtly frequent testing is feasible. The savings were relatively low, but sustaining the system takes little effort, giving little reason not to apply it. The findings will serve as a basis for improving the system and may guide others in introducing similar systems.
We are grateful to Dr. Dirk Bakkeren, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, for his advice on the initial selection of tests used for frequency filtering, to Dr. Dennis van de Wijngaart, Arnhem, for his comments on the manuscript, and Alison Edwards, Cambridge, for her support in editing the manuscript.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors’ conflict of interest disclosure: The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
References
1. Janssens PM. Managing the demand for laboratory testing: options and opportunities. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:1596–602.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000282562200008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar
2. Fryer AA, Smellie WS. Managing demand for laboratory tests: a laboratory toolkit. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:62–72.10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200524http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000312875000012&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. van Walraven C, Raymond M. Population-based study of repeat laboratory testing. Clin Chem 2003;49:1997–2005.10.1373/clinchem.2003.021220Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Carter of Coles (chair). Report of the Second Phase of the Review of NHS Pathology Services in England, 2008: 1–52. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_091984.pdf. Produced by Central Office of Information for the Department of Health. Crown copyright 2008.Search in Google Scholar
5. Neilson EG, Johnson KB, Rosenbloom ST, Dupont WD, Talbert D, Giuse DA, et al. The impact of peer management on test-ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:196–204.10.7326/0003-4819-141-3-200408030-00008Search in Google Scholar
6. Scherrenburg J, van de Wijngaart DJ, Janssens PM. Reducing the number of clinical stat phlebotomy orders: feasible or not? Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:2141–48.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000311899200010&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1515/cclm-2012-0286Search in Google Scholar
7. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, Teich JM, Fiskio J, Ma’luf N, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med 1999;106:144–50.10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00410-0Search in Google Scholar
8. Thomas RE, Croal BL, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Effect of enhanced feedback and brief educational reminder messages on laboratory test requesting in primary care: a cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2006;367:1990–6.10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68888-0Search in Google Scholar
9. Niès J, Colombet I, Zapletal E, Gillaizeau F, Chevalier P, Durieux P. Effects of automated alerts on unnecessarily repeated serology tests in a cardiovascular surgery department: a time series analysis. BMC Health Services Res 2010;10:1–7.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000276367700002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1186/1472-6963-10-70Search in Google Scholar
10. Bates DW, Boyle DL, Rittenberg E, Kuperman GJ, Ma’Luf N, Menkin V, et al. What proportion of common diagnostic tests appear redundant? Am J Med 1998;104:361–8.10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00063-1Search in Google Scholar
11. May TA, Clancy M, Critchfield J, Ebeling F, Enriquez A, Gallagher C, et al. Reducing unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;126:200–6.10.1309/WP59YM73L6CEGX2FSearch in Google Scholar
12. Saudek CD, Brick JC. The clinical use of hemoglobin A1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2009;3:629–34.10.1177/193229680900300402Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Bijlage 2 bij Beleidsregel CU-2073 Tarieflijst Instellingen 2012. Available from: http://www.nza.nl/regelgeving/tarieven/.Search in Google Scholar
14. Solomon DH, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH. Techniques to improve physicians’ use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework. J Am Med Assoc 1998;280:2020–7.10.1001/jama.280.23.2020Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Poley MJ, Edelenbos KI, Mosseveld M, van Wijk MA, de Bakker DH, van der Lei J, et al. Cost consequences of implementing an electronic decision support system for ordering laboratory tests in primary care: evidence from a controlled prospective study in The Netherlands. Clin Chem 2007;53:213–9.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000243965500009&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1373/clinchem.2006.073908Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Matheny ME, Sequist TD, Seger AC, Fiskio JM, Sperling M, Bugbee D, et al. A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve medication laboratory monitoring. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15:424–9.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000257794700004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1197/jamia.M2602Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay CR, Eccles MP, Grimshaw J. The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;3(CD001096):1–68.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000267816600011&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston