Literature DB >> 24898477

An automated minimum retest interval rejection rule reduces repeat CRP workload and expenditure, and influences clinician-requesting behaviour.

Jenna L Waldron1, Clare Ford1, Donald Dobie1, Graham Danks1, Richard Humphrey2, Alain Rolli1, Rousseau Gama3.   

Abstract

AIMS: Repeat serum C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements on the same day or on consecutive days are of limited clinical value. Minimum retesting intervals are recommended for managing unnecessary repeat testing. As not previously reported, we studied the effect of minimum retesting interval test rejection on laboratory workload and expenditure and on clinician-requesting behaviour.
METHODS: In a prospective study, we evaluated the effect of an automated 48 h CRP minimum retesting interval rule on inpatient and outpatient CRP workload and costs. Control data on inpatient and outpatient serum urea and electrolytes (UE) workload were collected during the study.
RESULTS: Over 1 year, there was a 7.0% and 12.3% decrease in CRP requests and CRP tests analysed, respectively, following the introduction of the minimum retesting interval rule when compared to the 1 year baseline period. This equated to an estimated annual reduction in revenue costs of £10 500, but cash savings in consumable costs of £3000. There was no significant change in UE requests.
CONCLUSIONS: We report, for the first time, that automated minimum retesting interval rejection rules as a stand-alone strategy are a cheap and sustainable method for reducing unnecessary repeat CRP tests, resulting in small laboratory cash savings, more efficient use of laboratory resources and standardisation of patient care pathways. The minimum retesting interval rejection rule also altered clinician test-requesting behaviour towards more appropriate requesting. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inflammation; Laboratory Management; Laboratory Tests

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24898477     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  5 in total

Review 1.  Reducing Test Utilization in Hospital Settings: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Renuka S Bindraban; Maarten J Ten Berg; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Mark H H Kramer; Wouter W Van Solinge; Prabath W B Nanayakkara
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 3.464

2.  Laboratory test ordering in inpatient hospitals: a systematic review on the effects and features of clinical decision support systems.

Authors:  Sahar Zare; Zahra Meidani; Mohammad Shirdeli; Ehsan Nabovati
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 3.  Effectiveness of Practices to Support Appropriate Laboratory Test Utilization: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Matthew Rubinstein; Robert Hirsch; Kakali Bandyopadhyay; Bereneice Madison; Thomas Taylor; Anne Ranne; Millie Linville; Keri Donaldson; Felicitas Lacbawan; Nancy Cornish
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Effectiveness of minimum retesting intervals in managing repetitive laboratory testing: experience from a Croatian university hospital.

Authors:  Ivana Lapić; Dunja Rogić; Mirjana Fuček; Ružica Galović
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.313

Review 5.  Laboratory Demand Management Strategies-An Overview.

Authors:  Cornelia Mrazek; Elisabeth Haschke-Becher; Thomas K Felder; Martin H Keppel; Hannes Oberkofler; Janne Cadamuro
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.