OBJECTIVE: The study of utilization patterns can quantify potential overuse of laboratory tests and find new ways to reduce healthcare costs. We demonstrate the use of distributional analytics for comparing electronic health record (EHR) laboratory test orders across time to diagnose and quantify overutilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We looked at hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing across 119,000 patients and 15 years of hospital records. We examined the patterns of HbA1c ordering before and after the publication of the 2002 American Diabetes Association guidelines for HbA1c testing. We conducted analyses to answer three questions. What are the patterns of HbA1c ordering? Do HbA1c orders follow the guidelines with respect to frequency of measurement? If not, how and why do they depart from the guidelines? RESULTS: The raw number of HbA1c orderings has steadily increased over time, with a specific increase in low-measurement orderings (<6.5%). There is a change in ordering pattern following the 2002 guideline (p<0.001). However, by comparing ordering distributions, we found that the changes do not reflect the guidelines and rather exhibit a new practice of rapid-repeat testing. The rapid-retesting phenomenon does not follow the 2009 guidelines for diabetes diagnosis either, illustrated by a stratified HbA1c value analysis. DISCUSSION: Results suggest HbA1c test overutilization, and contributing factors include lack of care coordination, unexpected values prompting retesting, and point-of-care tests followed by confirmatory laboratory tests. CONCLUSIONS: We present a method of comparing ordering distributions in an EHR across time as a useful diagnostic approach for identifying and assessing the trend of inappropriate use over time. 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.
OBJECTIVE: The study of utilization patterns can quantify potential overuse of laboratory tests and find new ways to reduce healthcare costs. We demonstrate the use of distributional analytics for comparing electronic health record (EHR) laboratory test orders across time to diagnose and quantify overutilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We looked at hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing across 119,000 patients and 15 years of hospital records. We examined the patterns of HbA1c ordering before and after the publication of the 2002 American Diabetes Association guidelines for HbA1c testing. We conducted analyses to answer three questions. What are the patterns of HbA1c ordering? Do HbA1c orders follow the guidelines with respect to frequency of measurement? If not, how and why do they depart from the guidelines? RESULTS: The raw number of HbA1c orderings has steadily increased over time, with a specific increase in low-measurement orderings (<6.5%). There is a change in ordering pattern following the 2002 guideline (p<0.001). However, by comparing ordering distributions, we found that the changes do not reflect the guidelines and rather exhibit a new practice of rapid-repeat testing. The rapid-retesting phenomenon does not follow the 2009 guidelines for diabetes diagnosis either, illustrated by a stratified HbA1c value analysis. DISCUSSION: Results suggest HbA1c test overutilization, and contributing factors include lack of care coordination, unexpected values prompting retesting, and point-of-care tests followed by confirmatory laboratory tests. CONCLUSIONS: We present a method of comparing ordering distributions in an EHR across time as a useful diagnostic approach for identifying and assessing the trend of inappropriate use over time. 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:
Electronic Health Records; Guideline Adherence; Laboratory Test Overutilization; Temporal Trends
Authors: Yehuda Handelsman; Jeffrey I Mechanick; Lawrence Blonde; George Grunberger; Zachary T Bloomgarden; George A Bray; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Jaime A Davidson; Daniel Einhorn; Om Ganda; Alan J Garber; Irl B Hirsch; Edward S Horton; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; Paul S Jellinger; Kenneth L Jones; Lois Jovanovič; Harold Lebovitz; Philip Levy; Etie S Moghissi; Eric A Orzeck; Aaron I Vinik; Kathleen L Wyne Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Bridget A Stewart; Susan Fernandes; Elizabeth Rodriguez-Huertas; Michael Landzberg Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elizabeth Selvin; Michael W Steffes; Hong Zhu; Kunihiro Matsushita; Lynne Wagenknecht; James Pankow; Josef Coresh; Frederick L Brancati Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gian Luca Salvagno; Giuseppe Lippi; Giovanni Targher; Martina Montagnana; Gian Cesare Guidi Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Joao H Bettencourt-Silva; Jeremy Clark; Colin S Cooper; Robert Mills; Victor J Rayward-Smith; Beatriz de la Iglesia Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2015-07-10
Authors: Katherine I Morley; Joshua Wallace; Spiros C Denaxas; Ross J Hunter; Riyaz S Patel; Pablo Perel; Anoop D Shah; Adam D Timmis; Richard J Schilling; Harry Hemingway Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ying Chen; Shih Ling Kao; E-Shyong Tai; Hwee Lin Wee; Eric Yin Hao Khoo; Yilin Ning; Mark Kevin Salloway; Xiaodong Deng; Chuen Seng Tan Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Juri Park; Sung Woo Park; Kun Ho Yoon; Sung Rae Kim; Kyu Jeung Ahn; Jae Hyuk Lee; Ji Oh Mok; Choon Hee Chung; Kyung Ah Han; Gwan Pyo Koh; Jun Goo Kang; Chang Beom Lee; Seong Hwan Kim; Na Young Kwon; Doo Man Kim Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Sarah Collins Rossetti; Chris Knaplund; Dave Albers; Patricia C Dykes; Min Jeoung Kang; Tom Z Korach; Li Zhou; Kumiko Schnock; Jose Garcia; Jessica Schwartz; Li-Heng Fu; Jeffrey G Klann; Graham Lowenthal; Kenrick Cato Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497