Kira Ryskina1,2, C Jessica Dine3,4, Yevgeniy Gitelman5,6, Damien Leri5, Mitesh Patel7,3,5,6, Gregory Kurtzman7, Lisa Y Lin7, Andrew J Epstein7,3,6. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. ryskina@mail.med.upenn.edu. 2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. ryskina@mail.med.upenn.edu. 3. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Social comparison feedback is an increasingly popular strategy that uses performance report cards to modify physician behavior. Our objective was to test the effect of such feedback on the ordering of routine laboratory tests for hospitalized patients, a practice considered overused. METHODS: This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Between January and June 2016, physicians on six general medicine teams at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania were cluster randomized with equal allocation to two arms: (1) those e-mailed a summary of their routine laboratory test ordering vs. the service average for the prior week, linked to a continuously updated personalized dashboard containing patient-level details, and snapshot of the dashboard and (2) those who did not receive the intervention. The primary outcome was the count of routine laboratory test orders placed by a physician per patient-day. We modeled the count of orders by each physician per patient-day after the intervention as a function of trial arm and the physician's order count before the intervention. The count outcome was modeled using negative binomial models with adjustment for clustering within teams. RESULTS:One hundred and fourteen interns and residents participated. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in adjusted reduction in routine laboratory ordering between the intervention and control physicians (physicians in the intervention group ordered 0.14 fewer tests per patient-day than physicians in the control group, 95% CI - 0.56 to 0.27, p = 0.50). Physicians whose absolute ordering rate deviated from the peer rate by more than 1.0 laboratory test per patient-day reduced their laboratory ordering by 0.80 orders per patient-day (95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.02, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Personalized social comparison feedback on routine laboratory ordering did not change targeted behavior among physicians, although there was a significant decrease in orders among participants who deviated more from the peer rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration: #NCT02330289.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Social comparison feedback is an increasingly popular strategy that uses performance report cards to modify physician behavior. Our objective was to test the effect of such feedback on the ordering of routine laboratory tests for hospitalized patients, a practice considered overused. METHODS: This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Between January and June 2016, physicians on six general medicine teams at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania were cluster randomized with equal allocation to two arms: (1) those e-mailed a summary of their routine laboratory test ordering vs. the service average for the prior week, linked to a continuously updated personalized dashboard containing patient-level details, and snapshot of the dashboard and (2) those who did not receive the intervention. The primary outcome was the count of routine laboratory test orders placed by a physician per patient-day. We modeled the count of orders by each physician per patient-day after the intervention as a function of trial arm and the physician's order count before the intervention. The count outcome was modeled using negative binomial models with adjustment for clustering within teams. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen interns and residents participated. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in adjusted reduction in routine laboratory ordering between the intervention and control physicians (physicians in the intervention group ordered 0.14 fewer tests per patient-day than physicians in the control group, 95% CI - 0.56 to 0.27, p = 0.50). Physicians whose absolute ordering rate deviated from the peer rate by more than 1.0 laboratory test per patient-day reduced their laboratory ordering by 0.80 orders per patient-day (95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.02, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Personalized social comparison feedback on routine laboratory ordering did not change targeted behavior among physicians, although there was a significant decrease in orders among participants who deviated more from the peer rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration: #NCT02330289.
Authors: D W Bates; G J Kuperman; E Rittenberg; J M Teich; J Fiskio; N Ma'luf; A Onderdonk; D Wybenga; J Winkelman; T A Brennan; A L Komaroff; M Tanasijevic Journal: Am J Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Noah Ivers; Gro Jamtvedt; Signe Flottorp; Jane M Young; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Simon D French; Mary Ann O'Brien; Marit Johansen; Jeremy Grimshaw; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-06-13
Authors: C Jessica Dine; Lisa M Bellini; Gretchen Diemer; Allison Ferris; Ashish Rana; Gina Simoncini; William Surkis; Charles Rothschild; David A Asch; Judy A Shea; Andrew J Epstein Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2015-12
Authors: Mina S Sedrak; Mitesh S Patel; Justin B Ziemba; Dana Murray; Esther J Kim; C Jessica Dine; Jennifer S Myers Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2016-08-13 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Kevin G Volpp; Dylan S Small; Alexander S Hill; Orit Even-Shoshan; Lisa Rosenbaum; Richard N Ross; Lisa Bellini; Jingsan Zhu; Jeffrey H Silber Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Charis Xuan Xie; Qiuzhe Chen; Cesar A Hincapié; Léonie Hofstetter; Chris G Maher; Gustavo C Machado Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Jung Yin Tsang; Niels Peek; Iain Buchan; Sabine N van der Veer; Benjamin Brown Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 7.942