Background: Among the variables that influence medical decisions, laboratory tests are considered to be among the most important and frequently used. The influence of laboratory tests on medical decisions has been difficult to estimate. The goal of this study was to estimate the number of patient encounters that included a laboratory test. Methods: We extracted information for 72196 patient encounters from 1-week intervals each quarter of a year from our comprehensive academic medical center electronic medical record. The patients examined represent a comprehensive range of clinical conditions and medical services. We determined for which encounters laboratory and other orders existed. Results: Overall 35% of encounters had 1 or more laboratory tests ordered. However, the percent varied markedly with patient care areas. For inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient populations, 98%, 56%, and 29%, respectively, had 1 or more laboratory tests ordered. Conclusions: Our observations support that it is not possible to use a single number to categorize the frequency with which laboratory tests occur in patient encounters. Utilization of laboratory tests varied with type of medical service with almost all inpatients, approximately half of emergency department patients, and nearly one-third of outpatients having laboratory tests during their healthcare visit.

/pdf/frequency-that-laboratory-tests-influence-medical-decisions-3mhzatvjea.pdf

Frequency that Laboratory Tests Influence Medical Decisions

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of practices used to support appropriate clinical laboratory test utilization. Methods This review followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Laboratory Medicine Best Practices A6 cycle method. Eligible studies assessed one of the following practices for effect on outcomes relating to over- or underutilization: computerized provider order entry (CPOE), clinical decision support systems/tools (CDSS/CDST), education, feedback, test review, reflex testing, laboratory test utilization (LTU) teams, and any combination of these practices. Eligible outcomes included intermediate, systems outcomes (eg, number of tests ordered/performed and cost of tests), as well as patient-related outcomes (eg, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, morbidity, and mortality). Results Eighty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Fifty-one of these studies could be meta-analyzed. Strength of evidence ratings for each practice ranged from high to insufficient. Conclusion Practice recommendations are made for CPOE (specifically, modifications to existing CPOE), reflex testing, and combined practices. No recommendation for or against could be made for CDSS/CDST, education, feedback, test review, and LTU. Findings from this review serve to inform guidance for future studies.

/pdf/effectiveness-of-practices-to-support-appropriate-laboratory-1i0nlgcqmc.pdf

Effectiveness of Practices to Support Appropriate Laboratory Test Utilization

Key questions about the future of laboratory medicine in the next decade of the 21st century: A report from the IFCC-Emerging Technologies Division

The 21st century challenge is to redesign healthcare systems to be safe, efficient, effective, timely, equitable and patient-centred. Although laboratory medicine is integral to many of these objectives involving prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and managing disease of patients, it suffers from poor visibility as a medical discipline and as a profession and fewer rewards for educational efforts when compared to other medical disciplines. Laboratory scientists are often perceived as managing machinery and equipment, but conversely they need to take a position of shared clinical leadership, showing the role of laboratory tests to guarantee optimal care for patients. This is however challenging because of some reluctance by laboratory professionals to involve themselves in test structuring and requesting and in the inspection of work as it arrives because it is assumed that all requests are clinically necessary; there is a poor communication and integration between clinical wards and laboratory; and, importantly, there is the need for an excellent cultural and scientific background of laboratory professionals for implementing outcome research and to act as knowledge managers and skilled clinical consultants. By combining the unique talent of performing quality laboratory assays with knowledge of the pathophysiologic rationale behind the tests, laboratory professionals have the expertise to advise their clinical colleagues in regard to the appropriate test selection and interpretation of laboratory results, thereby creating opportunities to define the added value and the pivotal role of laboratory medicine on healthcare delivery.

/pdf/laboratory-medicine-in-the-new-healthcare-environment-ybrgiac1ow.pdf

Laboratory medicine in the new healthcare environment.

Project Santa Fe was established both to provide thought leadership and to help develop the evidence base for the valuation of clinical laboratory services in the next era of American healthcare. The participants in Project Santa Fe represent major regional health systems that can operationalize laboratory-driven innovations and test their valuation in diverse regional marketplaces in the United States. We provide recommendations from the inaugural March 2016 meeting of Project Santa Fe. Specifically, in the transition from volume-based to value-based health care, clinical laboratories are called upon to provide programmatic leadership in reducing total cost of care through optimization of time-to-diagnosis and time-to-effective therapeutics, optimization of care coordination, and programmatic support of wellness care, screening, and monitoring. This call to action is more than working with industry stakeholders on the basis of our expertise; it is providing leadership in creating the programs that accomplish these objectives. In so doing, clinical laboratories can be effectors in identifying patients at risk for escalation in care, closing gaps in care, and optimizing outcomes of health care innovation. We also hope that, through such activities, the evidence base will be created for the new value propositions of integrated laboratory networks. In the very simplest sense, this effort to create "Clinical Lab 2.0" will establish the impact of laboratory diagnostics on the full 100% spend in American healthcare, not just the 2.5% spend attributed to in vitro diagnostics. In so doing, our aim is to empower regional and local laboratories to thrive under new models of payment in the next era of American health care delivery.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2374289517701067

Improving American Healthcare Through "Clinical Lab 2.0": A Project Santa Fe Report.

Background: Systematic evidence of the contribution made by laboratory medicine to patient outcomes and the overall process of healthcare is difficult to find. An understanding of the value of laboratory medicine, how it can be determined, and the various factors that influence it is vital to ensuring that the service is provided and used optimally.

Content: This review summarizes existing evidence supporting the impact of laboratory medicine in healthcare and indicates the gaps in our understanding. It also identifies deficiencies in current utilization, suggests potential solutions, and offers a vision of a future in which laboratory medicine is used optimally to support patient care.

Summary: To maximize the value of laboratory medicine, work is required in 5 areas: ( a ) improved utilization of existing and new tests; ( b ) definition of new roles for laboratory professionals that are focused on optimizing patient outcomes by adding value at all points of the diagnostic brain-to-brain cycle; ( c ) development of standardized protocols for prospective patient-centered studies of biomarker clinical effectiveness or extraanalytical process effectiveness; ( d ) benchmarking of existing and new tests in specified situations with commonly accepted measures of effectiveness; ( e ) agreed definition and validation of effectiveness measures and use of checklists for articles submitted for publication. Progress in these areas is essential if we are to demonstrate and enhance the value of laboratory medicine and prevent valuable information being lost in meaningless data. This requires effective collaboration with clinicians, and a determination to accept patient outcome and patient experience as the primary measure of laboratory effectiveness.

/pdf/current-evidence-and-future-perspectives-on-the-effective-12598f9d4l.pdf

Michael J Hallworth

Papers

Current Evidence and Future Perspectives on the Effective Practice of Patient-Centered Laboratory Medicine