OBJECTIVES: Rising costs in healthcare have focused attention on interventions to optimize efficiency of patient care, including decreasing unnecessary diagnostic testing. The primary objective of this study was to determine the variability of laboratory and radiology testing among licensed independent providers (LIPs) with different training backgrounds treating low-acuity patients in a pediatric emergency department (PED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the electronic health records of all encounters with patients 21 years or younger, triaged as low-acuity, visiting 2 urban, academic PEDs from January 2012 to December 2013. We calculated frequency of orders for specific tests, including complete blood counts, aerobic blood cultures, urine cultures, and chest radiographs. Bivariable analyses were used to measure associations of test ordering between these LIP dyad groups: physician versus nurse practitioner (NP); physicians with pediatric emergency medicine fellowship training (PEM) versus physicians without PEM training and physicians with at least 5 years since residency graduation versus less than 5 years. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders, including ED location, trainee co-management, and patient characteristics. We also performed sensitivity analyses by location. RESULTS: There were 148,570 total encounters treated by 12 NPs and 144 physicians, of whom 60 were PEM physicians. Seventy-three physicians had 5 or more years of experience. Testing rates per patient encounter ranged from 0% to 40% for individual providers. In bivariable analyses, testing was more likely when the LIP was a physician (odds ratio [OR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-1.2) or PEM trained (OR = 1.3, 1.2-1.3). In multivariable analyses, testing was more likely for encounters with PEM providers (adjusted OR [AdjOR] = 1.2, 1.1-1.3). A sensitivity analysis on a subset of encounters seen exclusively at our PED-based urgent care revealed that testing was also more likely for encounters seen by PEM physicians (AdjOR = 1.5, 1.4-1.7) and with NPs (AdjOR = 1.2, 1.1-1.4) compared with physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified substantial variation in test ordering patterns for LIPs treating low-acuity patients. There were significant differences in ordering practices between providers from different training backgrounds, most significantly when comparing PEM with non-PEM providers. Further research should examine interventions to standardize practice across disciplines.
OBJECTIVES: Rising costs in healthcare have focused attention on interventions to optimize efficiency of patient care, including decreasing unnecessary diagnostic testing. The primary objective of this study was to determine the variability of laboratory and radiology testing among licensed independent providers (LIPs) with different training backgrounds treating low-acuity patients in a pediatric emergency department (PED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the electronic health records of all encounters with patients 21 years or younger, triaged as low-acuity, visiting 2 urban, academic PEDs from January 2012 to December 2013. We calculated frequency of orders for specific tests, including complete blood counts, aerobic blood cultures, urine cultures, and chest radiographs. Bivariable analyses were used to measure associations of test ordering between these LIP dyad groups: physician versus nurse practitioner (NP); physicians with pediatric emergency medicine fellowship training (PEM) versus physicians without PEM training and physicians with at least 5 years since residency graduation versus less than 5 years. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders, including ED location, trainee co-management, and patient characteristics. We also performed sensitivity analyses by location. RESULTS: There were 148,570 total encounters treated by 12 NPs and 144 physicians, of whom 60 were PEM physicians. Seventy-three physicians had 5 or more years of experience. Testing rates per patient encounter ranged from 0% to 40% for individual providers. In bivariable analyses, testing was more likely when the LIP was a physician (odds ratio [OR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-1.2) or PEM trained (OR = 1.3, 1.2-1.3). In multivariable analyses, testing was more likely for encounters with PEM providers (adjusted OR [AdjOR] = 1.2, 1.1-1.3). A sensitivity analysis on a subset of encounters seen exclusively at our PED-based urgent care revealed that testing was also more likely for encounters seen by PEM physicians (AdjOR = 1.5, 1.4-1.7) and with NPs (AdjOR = 1.2, 1.1-1.4) compared with physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified substantial variation in test ordering patterns for LIPs treating low-acuity patients. There were significant differences in ordering practices between providers from different training backgrounds, most significantly when comparing PEM with non-PEM providers. Further research should examine interventions to standardize practice across disciplines.
Authors: Gabrielle C Freire; Christina Diong; Sima Gandhi; Natasha Saunders; Mark I Neuman; Stephen B Freedman; Jeremy N Friedman; Eyal Cohen Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2022-10-11