N Pashayan1, M Khogali, S C Major. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, American University Of Beirut, Lebanon.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of routine urinalysis at admission on inpatient care at a hospital in Lebanon, where physicians perceive it to be a valuable diagnostic tool, in a country where preventive services are underdeveloped and where the epidemiology of kidney diseases possibly differs from that of the western world. SETTING: American University Hospital, a tertiary teaching hospital in Beirut, Lebanon. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of all adult patients admitted over 2 weeks to the medicine and surgery wards of the American University Hospital. Outcomes measured were frequency of routine urinalysis versus urinalysis for a clinical indication, investigation of abnormal test results, and implications of test results on clinical management. RESULTS: 367 (79%) of 462 study patients underwent urinalysis. 266 (73%) patients had routine urinalysis. Abnormal results were found in 97(37%) routine tests and 67 (66%) of those clinically indicated urinalysis (p<0.001). Abnormalities were investigated in 21 (22%) of the abnormal routine urinalyses and 45 (67%) of the abnormal clinically indicated urinalyses (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed no factors to correlate positively with investigation of abnormal urinalysis. Treatment was given to two (1%) patients who had had routine urinalysis and 26 (26%) of all those tested because of a clinical indication (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical response to any abnormal urinalysis is more likely when a urine test is done for a clinical indication. In this study setting, impact of routine admission urinalysis on patient care was negligible. Despite physicians' perception of routine urinalysis being a valuable case finding tool, in this study its true value remains questionable.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of routine urinalysis at admission on inpatient care at a hospital in Lebanon, where physicians perceive it to be a valuable diagnostic tool, in a country where preventive services are underdeveloped and where the epidemiology of kidney diseases possibly differs from that of the western world. SETTING: American University Hospital, a tertiary teaching hospital in Beirut, Lebanon. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of all adult patients admitted over 2 weeks to the medicine and surgery wards of the American University Hospital. Outcomes measured were frequency of routine urinalysis versus urinalysis for a clinical indication, investigation of abnormal test results, and implications of test results on clinical management. RESULTS: 367 (79%) of 462 study patients underwent urinalysis. 266 (73%) patients had routine urinalysis. Abnormal results were found in 97(37%) routine tests and 67 (66%) of those clinically indicated urinalysis (p<0.001). Abnormalities were investigated in 21 (22%) of the abnormal routine urinalyses and 45 (67%) of the abnormal clinically indicated urinalyses (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed no factors to correlate positively with investigation of abnormal urinalysis. Treatment was given to two (1%) patients who had had routine urinalysis and 26 (26%) of all those tested because of a clinical indication (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical response to any abnormal urinalysis is more likely when a urine test is done for a clinical indication. In this study setting, impact of routine admission urinalysis on patient care was negligible. Despite physicians' perception of routine urinalysis being a valuable case finding tool, in this study its true value remains questionable.