Literature DB >> 28758100

Appropriateness of tumor marker request: a case of study.

Massimo Gion1, Chiara Trevisiol2, Aline S C Fabricio1.   

Abstract

Appropriateness is crucial to provide efficient and high-quality health services at affordable costs. Laboratory medicine is a sector of special interest for the investigation of inappropriateness, due to the high rate of technological innovation and its pivotal role in many diseases and clinical settings. Some subjective aspects related to either the patient or physician seem to have a major role on inappropriateness rates. Given the psychological impact of cancer on both patients and physicians, tumor markers represent a case of study for appropriateness. The assessment of inappropriateness of laboratory tests has been focused mainly on ordering patterns. Appropriateness can barely be appraised by matching the requested test with the clinical problem because clinical information on the test requisition form is usually inadequate. Monitoring inappropriateness through individual clinical information may be feasible in inpatient (clinical data are available), while an indirect approach should be used for outpatients. To estimate inappropriateness in outpatients our group developed innovative models based on comparison between the actually ordered and expected requests of tumor marker, calculated according to recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applied to figures of cancer prevalence. The implementation of the model at national scale in Italy led to recognize a very high rate of overordering of tumor markers. The model was further focused by a dedicated algorithm to be adapted to different clinical conditions or organizational settings by applying performance indicators to cohort-wide structured information in electronic health records (EHRs). With this novel approach, we showed that inappropriateness is multifaceted even within the specific category of tumour markers. The model was effective in identifying both over- and underordering. Implementation of evidence based information and monitoring their impact on the clinical practice are parts of the same, multistage, process aimed at the progressive improvement of health care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Tumor markers; appropriateness; electronic health record (EHR); indicators

Year:  2017        PMID: 28758100      PMCID: PMC5515802          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2017.06.19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  30 in total

Review 1.  Demand management and test request rationalization.

Authors:  W S A Smellie
Journal:  Ann Clin Biochem       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 2.057

2.  Tumour markers in internal medicine: a low-cost test or an unnecessary expense? A retrospective study based on appropriateness.

Authors:  D Arioli; M Pipino; E Boldrini; E Amateis; A Cristani; P Ventura; E Romagnoli; M C De Santis; M L Zeneroli
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2007-07-09       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 3.  Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making.

Authors:  Sharon E Straus; Jacqueline M Tetroe; Ian D Graham
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Tumour marker requesting in primary care and the role of the laboratory.

Authors:  Patrick L C Walker; Martin Crook
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Circulating tumor markers: a guide to their appropriate clinical use | Comparative summary of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (PART 2).

Authors:  Massimo Gion; Chiara Trevisiol; Anne W S Rutjes; Giulia Rainato; Aline S C Fabricio
Journal:  Int J Biol Markers       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.659

6.  Inappropriateness in laboratory medicine: an elephant in the room?

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Chiara Bovo; Marcello Ciaccio
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-02

Review 7.  Do we now know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? An expanded systematic review of laboratory clinical audits.

Authors:  Ronald G Hauser; Brian H Shirts
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.493

8.  An epidemiology-based model as a tool to monitor the outbreak of inappropriateness in tumor marker requests: a national scale study.

Authors:  Massimo Gion; Lucia Peloso; Chiara Trevisiol; Elisa Squarcina; Marco Zappa; Aline S C Fabricio
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  How tumor markers are used in the routine follow-up of breast and colorectal cancer. A survey of 29 Italian hospitals.

Authors:  M Gion; P Barioli; A Ponti; V Torri; R Mione; R Dittadi
Journal:  Int J Biol Markers       Date:  1998 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 10.  The dangers of false-positive and false-negative test results: false-positive results as a function of pretest probability.

Authors:  Brian R Jackson
Journal:  Clin Lab Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.935

View more
  3 in total

1.  Cancer diagnostics: current concepts and future perspectives.

Authors:  Martina Montagnana; Giuseppe Lippi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-07

2.  Consensus of the Spanish society of laboratory medicine and the Spanish society of medical oncology on the methodology and criteria for evaluation of circulating tumour markers in breast cancer.

Authors:  F Ayala de la Peña; B Ortiz-Muñoz; T Quintanar-Verdúguez; J D Santotoribio; S de la Cruz; J Trapé-Pujol; E Galve-Calvo; J M Augé-Fradera; J García-Gómez; Á González-Hernández
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2021-02-07       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  Appropriateness of Using Tests for Blood Glucose and Diabetic Complications in Clinical Practice: Experiences in a Hospital in Thailand.

Authors:  Veeravan Lekskulchai
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-10-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.