Cameron Escovedo1, Douglas Bell2, Eric Cheng3, Omai Garner4, Alyssa Ziman4, Sitaram Vangala5, Prabhu Gounder6, Carlos Lerner1. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 2. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 3. Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 4. Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 5. Department of Medicine Statistics Core, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 6. Acute Communicable Disease Control, County of Los Angeles Public Health, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A growing body of evidence suggests that testing for influenza virus alone is more appropriate than multiplex respiratory viral panel (RVP) testing for general populations of patients with respiratory tract infections. We aimed to decrease the proportion of RVPs out of total respiratory viral testing ordered during influenza season. METHODS: We implemented two consecutive interventions: reflex testing for RVPs only after a negative influenza test, and noninterruptive clinical decision support (CDS) including modifications of the computerized physician order entry search behavior and cost display. We conducted an interrupted time series of RVPs and influenza polymerase chain reaction tests pre- and postintervention, and performed a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis with a primary outcome of proportion of RVPs out of total respiratory viral tests. The primary predictor was the intervention period, and covariates included the provider, clinical setting, associated diagnoses, and influenza incidence. RESULTS: From March 2013 to April 2019, there were 24,294 RVPs and 26,012 influenza tests (n = 50,306). Odds of ordering an RVP decreased during the reflex testing period (odds ratio: 0.432, 95% confidence interval: 0.397-0.469), and decreased more dramatically during the noninterruptive CDS period (odds ratio: 0.291, 95% confidence interval: 0.259-0.327). DISCUSSION: The odds of ordering an RVP were 71% less with the noninterruptive CDS intervention, which projected 4,773 fewer RVPs compared with baseline. Assuming a cost equal to Medicare reimbursement rates for RVPs and influenza tests, this would generate an estimated averted cost of $1,259,474 per year. CONCLUSION: Noninterruptive CDS interventions are effective in reducing unnecessary and expensive testing, and avoid typical pitfalls such as alert fatigue. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVE: A growing body of evidence suggests that testing for influenza virus alone is more appropriate than multiplex respiratory viral panel (RVP) testing for general populations of patients with respiratory tract infections. We aimed to decrease the proportion of RVPs out of total respiratory viral testing ordered during influenza season. METHODS: We implemented two consecutive interventions: reflex testing for RVPs only after a negative influenza test, and noninterruptive clinical decision support (CDS) including modifications of the computerized physician order entry search behavior and cost display. We conducted an interrupted time series of RVPs and influenza polymerase chain reaction tests pre- and postintervention, and performed a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis with a primary outcome of proportion of RVPs out of total respiratory viral tests. The primary predictor was the intervention period, and covariates included the provider, clinical setting, associated diagnoses, and influenza incidence. RESULTS: From March 2013 to April 2019, there were 24,294 RVPs and 26,012 influenza tests (n = 50,306). Odds of ordering an RVP decreased during the reflex testing period (odds ratio: 0.432, 95% confidence interval: 0.397-0.469), and decreased more dramatically during the noninterruptive CDS period (odds ratio: 0.291, 95% confidence interval: 0.259-0.327). DISCUSSION: The odds of ordering an RVP were 71% less with the noninterruptive CDS intervention, which projected 4,773 fewer RVPs compared with baseline. Assuming a cost equal to Medicare reimbursement rates for RVPs and influenza tests, this would generate an estimated averted cost of $1,259,474 per year. CONCLUSION: Noninterruptive CDS interventions are effective in reducing unnecessary and expensive testing, and avoid typical pitfalls such as alert fatigue. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Beverly B Rogers; Prabhu Shankar; Robert C Jerris; David Kotzbauer; Evan J Anderson; J Renee Watson; Lauren A O'Brien; Francine Uwindatwa; Kelly McNamara; James E Bost Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: J Michael Miller; Matthew J Binnicker; Sheldon Campbell; Karen C Carroll; Kimberle C Chapin; Peter H Gilligan; Mark D Gonzalez; Robert C Jerris; Sue C Kehl; Robin Patel; Bobbi S Pritt; Sandra S Richter; Barbara Robinson-Dunn; Joseph D Schwartzman; James W Snyder; Sam Telford; Elitza S Theel; Richard B Thomson; Melvin P Weinstein; Joseph D Yao Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Daniel M Kobewka; Paul E Ronksley; Jennifer A McKay; Alan J Forster; Carl van Walraven Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: David H Smith; Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy A Perrin; Xiuhai Yang; Mary M Rix; Marsha A Raebel; David J Magid; Steven R Simon; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Marianne R Scheitel; Maya E Kessler; Jane L Shellum; Steve G Peters; Dawn S Milliner; Hongfang Liu; Ravikumar Komandur Elayavilli; Karl A Poterack; Timothy A Miksch; Jennifer Boysen; Ron A Hankey; Rajeev Chaudhry Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Joseph Jonathan Lee; Jan Y Verbakel; Clare Rosemary Goyder; Thanusha Ananthakumar; Pui San Tan; Phillip James Turner; Gail Hayward; Ann Van den Bruel Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Juan D Chaparro; Jonathan M Beus; Adam C Dziorny; Philip A Hagedorn; Sean Hernandez; Swaminathan Kandaswamy; Eric S Kirkendall; Allison B McCoy; Naveen Muthu; Evan W Orenstein Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Shohei Ikoma; Logan Pierce; Douglas S Bell; Eric M Cheng; Thomas Drake; Rong Guo; Alyssa Ziman Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 2.762