Shohei Ikoma1, Logan Pierce2, Douglas S Bell3, Eric M Cheng4, Thomas Drake5, Rong Guo6, Alyssa Ziman7. 1. Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States. 2. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States. 4. Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States. 6. Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States. 7. Wing-Kwai and Alice Lee-Tsing Chung Transfusion Service, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Reduction in unnecessary services is one strategy for increasing the value of health care. Reference laboratory, or send-out, tests are associated with considerable costs. We investigated whether displaying cost and turnaround time (TAT), or time-to-result, for reference laboratory tests at the time of order entry in the electronic health record (EHR) system would impact provider ordering practices. METHODS: Reference laboratory test cost and TAT data were randomized prior to the study and only displayed for the intervention group. A 24-month dataset composed of 12 months each for baseline and study periods was extracted from the clinical data mart. A difference-in-differences (DID) analysis was conducted using a linear mixed-effects model to estimate the association between the intervention and changes in test-ordering patterns. RESULTS: In the inpatient setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.31 and p = 0.26, respectively). In the ambulatory setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.82 and p = 0.51, respectively). For both inpatient and ambulatory settings, no significant difference was observed in the DID of aggregate test-order costs and volumes calculated in respect to stratified relative cost and TAT groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Lack of alternative tests, test orders placed at a late step in patient management, and orders facilitated by trainees or mid-level providers may have limited the efficacy of the intervention. Our randomized study demonstrated no significant association between the display of cost or TAT display and ordering frequency. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: Reduction in unnecessary services is one strategy for increasing the value of health care. Reference laboratory, or send-out, tests are associated with considerable costs. We investigated whether displaying cost and turnaround time (TAT), or time-to-result, for reference laboratory tests at the time of order entry in the electronic health record (EHR) system would impact provider ordering practices. METHODS: Reference laboratory test cost and TAT data were randomized prior to the study and only displayed for the intervention group. A 24-month dataset composed of 12 months each for baseline and study periods was extracted from the clinical data mart. A difference-in-differences (DID) analysis was conducted using a linear mixed-effects model to estimate the association between the intervention and changes in test-ordering patterns. RESULTS: In the inpatient setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.31 and p = 0.26, respectively). In the ambulatory setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.82 and p = 0.51, respectively). For both inpatient and ambulatory settings, no significant difference was observed in the DID of aggregate test-order costs and volumes calculated in respect to stratified relative cost and TAT groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Lack of alternative tests, test orders placed at a late step in patient management, and orders facilitated by trainees or mid-level providers may have limited the efficacy of the intervention. Our randomized study demonstrated no significant association between the display of cost or TAT display and ordering frequency. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Danielle E Kurant; Jason M Baron; Genti Strazimiri; Kent B Lewandrowski; Joseph W Rudolf; Anand S Dighe Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Daniel Z Fang; Gurmeet Sran; Daniel Gessner; Pooja D Loftus; Ann Folkins; John Y Christopher; Lisa Shieh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Daniel M Horn; Kate E Koplan; Margaret D Senese; E John Orav; Thomas D Sequist Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mina S Sedrak; Jennifer S Myers; Dylan S Small; Irving Nachamkin; Justin B Ziemba; Dana Murray; Gregory W Kurtzman; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Deborah Mincarelli; Daniel Danoski; Brian P Wells; Jeffrey S Berns; Patrick J Brennan; C William Hanson; C Jessica Dine; Mitesh S Patel Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Leonard S Feldman; Hasan M Shihab; David Thiemann; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Margaret Ardolino; Steven Mandell; Daniel J Brotman Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 21.873