Anshula Ambasta1,2, Stefana Pancic3, Brian M Wong4,5, Todd Lee6, Deirdre McCaughey3,7, Irene W Y Ma3,8. 1. Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. aambasta@ucalgary.ca. 2. Ward of the 21st century, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. aambasta@ucalgary.ca. 3. Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 7. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 8. Ward of the 21st century, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repetitive inpatient laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability is a marker of low-value care. However, for commonly encountered clinical scenarios on medical units, there are no guidelines defining appropriate use criteria for laboratory tests. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to establish consensus-based recommendations for the utilization of common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. DESIGN: This study uses a modified Delphi method. Participants completed two rounds of an online survey to determine appropriate testing frequencies for selected laboratory tests in commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 80% of participants. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 36 experts in internal medicine across Canada defined as internists in independent practice for ≥ 5 years with experience in medical education, quality improvement, or both. Experts represented 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces and 13 of 17 academic institutions. MAIN MEASURES: Laboratory tests and clinical scenarios included were those that were considered common on medical units. The final survey contained a total of 45 clinical scenarios looking at the utilization of six laboratory tests (complete blood count, electrolytes, creatinine, urea, international normalized ratio, and partial thromboplastin time). The possible frequency choices were every 2-4 h, 6-8 h, twice a day, daily, every 2-3 days, weekly, or none unless there was specific diagnostic suspicion. These scenarios were reviewed by two internists with training in quality improvement and survey methods. KEY RESULTS: Of the 45 initial clinical scenarios included, we reached consensus on 17 scenarios. We reached weak consensus on an additional 19 scenarios by combining two adjacent frequency categories. CONCLUSIONS: A Canadian expert panel of internists has provided frequency recommendations on the utilization of six common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. These recommendations need validation in prospective studies to assess whether restrictive versus liberal laboratory test ordering impacts patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Repetitive inpatient laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability is a marker of low-value care. However, for commonly encountered clinical scenarios on medical units, there are no guidelines defining appropriate use criteria for laboratory tests. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to establish consensus-based recommendations for the utilization of common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. DESIGN: This study uses a modified Delphi method. Participants completed two rounds of an online survey to determine appropriate testing frequencies for selected laboratory tests in commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 80% of participants. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 36 experts in internal medicine across Canada defined as internists in independent practice for ≥ 5 years with experience in medical education, quality improvement, or both. Experts represented 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces and 13 of 17 academic institutions. MAIN MEASURES: Laboratory tests and clinical scenarios included were those that were considered common on medical units. The final survey contained a total of 45 clinical scenarios looking at the utilization of six laboratory tests (complete blood count, electrolytes, creatinine, urea, international normalized ratio, and partial thromboplastin time). The possible frequency choices were every 2-4 h, 6-8 h, twice a day, daily, every 2-3 days, weekly, or none unless there was specific diagnostic suspicion. These scenarios were reviewed by two internists with training in quality improvement and survey methods. KEY RESULTS: Of the 45 initial clinical scenarios included, we reached consensus on 17 scenarios. We reached weak consensus on an additional 19 scenarios by combining two adjacent frequency categories. CONCLUSIONS: A Canadian expert panel of internists has provided frequency recommendations on the utilization of six common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. These recommendations need validation in prospective studies to assess whether restrictive versus liberal laboratory test ordering impacts patient outcomes.
Authors: Todd A May; Mary Clancy; Jeff Critchfield; Fern Ebeling; Anita Enriquez; Carmel Gallagher; Jim Genevro; Jay Kloo; Paul Lewis; Rita Smith; Valerie L Ng Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Kevin P Eaton; Kathryn Levy; Christine Soong; Amit K Pahwa; Christopher Petrilli; Justin B Ziemba; Hyung J Cho; Rodrigo Alban; Jaime F Blanck; Andrew S Parsons Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan; Akshay Bagai; Albert Ebidia; Allan S Detsky; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Bradley M Wertheim; Andrew J Aguirre; Roby P Bhattacharyya; John Chorba; Ashutosh P Jadhav; Vanessa B Kerry; Eric A Macklin; Gabriela Motyckova; Shveta Raju; Kent Lewandrowski; Daniel P Hunt; Douglas E Wright Journal: Am J Med Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Todd C Lee; Emily G McDonald; Zahra N Sohani; Guillaume Butler-Laporte; Andrew Aw; Sara Belga; Andrea Benedetti; Alex Carignan; Matthew P Cheng; Bryan Coburn; Cecilia T Costiniuk; Nicole Ezer; Dan Gregson; Andrew Johnson; Kosar Khwaja; Alexander Lawandi; Victor Leung; Sylvain Lother; Derek MacFadden; Michaeline McGuinty; Leighanne Parkes; Salman Qureshi; Valerie Roy; Barret Rush; Ilan Schwartz; Miranda So; Ranjani Somayaji; Darrell Tan; Emilie Trinh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.006