Chase D Hendrickson1, Michael F McLemore2, Kathryn M Dahir1, Shari Just2, Zahra Shajani-Yi3, Joseph LeGrand2, Christoph U Lehmann4, Asli Weitkamp2,4. 1. Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 2. Health Information Technology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 3. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. 4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite guideline recommendations, vitamin D testing has increased substantially. Clinical decision support (CDS) presents an opportunity to reduce inappropriate laboratory testing. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To reduce inappropriate testing of vitamin D at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a CDS assigned providers to receive or not receive an electronic alert each time a 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay was ordered for an adult patient unless the order was associated with a diagnosis in the patient's chart for which vitamin D testing is recommended. The CDS ran for 80 days, collecting data on number of tests, provider information, and basic patient demographics. RESULTS: During the 80 days, providers placed 12,368 orders for 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The intervention group ordered a vitamin D assay and received the alert for potentially inappropriate testing 2,181 times and completed the 25-hydroxyvitamin D order in 89.9% of encounters, while the control group ordered a vitamin D assay (without receiving an alert) 2,032 times and completed the order in 98.1% of encounters, for an absolute reduction of testing of 8% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This CDS reduced vitamin D ordering by utilizing a soft-stop approach. At a charge of $179.00 per test and a cost to the laboratory of $4.20 per test, each display of the alert led to an average reduction of $14.70 in charges and of $0.34 in spending by the laboratory (the savings/alert ratio). By describing the effectiveness of an electronic alert in terms of the savings/alert ratio, the impact of this intervention can be better appreciated and compared with other interventions. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite guideline recommendations, vitamin D testing has increased substantially. Clinical decision support (CDS) presents an opportunity to reduce inappropriate laboratory testing. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To reduce inappropriate testing of vitamin D at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a CDS assigned providers to receive or not receive an electronic alert each time a 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay was ordered for an adult patient unless the order was associated with a diagnosis in the patient's chart for which vitamin D testing is recommended. The CDS ran for 80 days, collecting data on number of tests, provider information, and basic patient demographics. RESULTS: During the 80 days, providers placed 12,368 orders for 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The intervention group ordered a vitamin D assay and received the alert for potentially inappropriate testing 2,181 times and completed the 25-hydroxyvitamin D order in 89.9% of encounters, while the control group ordered a vitamin D assay (without receiving an alert) 2,032 times and completed the order in 98.1% of encounters, for an absolute reduction of testing of 8% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This CDS reduced vitamin D ordering by utilizing a soft-stop approach. At a charge of $179.00 per test and a cost to the laboratory of $4.20 per test, each display of the alert led to an average reduction of $14.70 in charges and of $0.34 in spending by the laboratory (the savings/alert ratio). By describing the effectiveness of an electronic alert in terms of the savings/alert ratio, the impact of this intervention can be better appreciated and compared with other interventions. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Giuseppe Lippi; Marco Brambilla; Patrizia Bonelli; Rosalia Aloe; Antonio Balestrino; Anna Nardelli; Gian Paolo Ceda; Massimo Fabi Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Christopher Naugler; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Hude Quan; Fiona Clement; Tolulope Sajobi; Roger Thomas; Tanvir C Turin; William Hnydyk; Alex Chin; James Wesenberg Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-01-17
Authors: Michael F Holick; Neil C Binkley; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Catherine M Gordon; David A Hanley; Robert P Heaney; M Hassan Murad; Connie M Weaver Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Celia Rodd; AbdulRazaq Sokoro; Lisa M Lix; Laurel Thorlacius; Michael Moffatt; Jim Slater; Eric Bohm Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Duncan R White; Keith W Hamilton; David A Pegues; Asaf Hanish; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.254