Dataset Information

Effect of Social Comparison Feedback on Laboratory Test Ordering for Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Social comparison feedback is an increasingly popular strategy that uses performance report cards to modify physician behavior. Our objective was to test the effect of such feedback on the ordering of routine laboratory tests for hospitalized patients, a practice considered overused. METHODS:This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Between January and June 2016, physicians on six general medicine teams at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania were cluster randomized with equal allocation to two arms: (1) those e-mailed a summary of their routine laboratory test ordering vs. the service average for the prior week, linked to a continuously updated personalized dashboard containing patient-level details, and snapshot of the dashboard and (2) those who did not receive the intervention. The primary outcome was the count of routine laboratory test orders placed by a physician per patient-day. We modeled the count of orders by each physician per patient-day after the intervention as a function of trial arm and the physician's order count before the intervention. The count outcome was modeled using negative binomial models with adjustment for clustering within teams. RESULTS:One hundred and fourteen interns and residents participated. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in adjusted reduction in routine laboratory ordering between the intervention and control physicians (physicians in the intervention group ordered 0.14 fewer tests per patient-day than physicians in the control group, 95% CI -?0.56 to 0.27, p?=?0.50). Physicians whose absolute ordering rate deviated from the peer rate by more than 1.0 laboratory test per patient-day reduced their laboratory ordering by 0.80 orders per patient-day (95% CI -?1.58 to -?0.02, p?=?0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Personalized social comparison feedback on routine laboratory ordering did not change targeted behavior among physicians, although there was a significant decrease in orders among participants who deviated more from the peer rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov registration: #NCT02330289.

SUBMITTER: Ryskina K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6153251 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Social Comparison Feedback on Laboratory Test Ordering for Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Ryskina Kira K Jessica Dine C C Gitelman Yevgeniy Y Leri Damien D Patel Mitesh M Kurtzman Gregory G Lin Lisa Y LY Epstein Andrew J AJ

Journal of general internal medicine 20180522 10

<h4>Background</h4>Social comparison feedback is an increasingly popular strategy that uses performance report cards to modify physician behavior. Our objective was to test the effect of such feedback on the ordering of routine laboratory tests for hospitalized patients, a practice considered overused.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Between January and June 2016, physicians on six general medicine teams at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania were ...[more]

PMID: 29790072

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMuch research worldwide is focussed on cost containment and better adherence to guidelines in healthcare. The research focussing on professional behaviour is often performed in a well-controlled research setting. In this study a large-scale implementation of a peer review strategy was tested on both test ordering and prescribing behaviour in primary care in the normal quality improvement setting.MethodsWe planned a cluster-RCT in existing local quality improvement collaboratives (LQICs) in primary care. The study ran from January 2008 to January 2011. LQICs were randomly assigned to one of two trial arms, with each arm receiving the same intervention of audit and feedback combined with peer review. Both arms were offered five different clinical topics and acted as blind controls for the other arm. The differences in test ordering rates and prescribing rates between both arms were analysed in an intention-to-treat pre-post analysis and a per-protocol analysis.ResultsTwenty-one LQIC groups, including 197 GPs working in 88 practices, entered the trial. The intention-to-treat analysis did not show a difference in the changes in test ordering or prescribing performance between intervention and control groups. The per-protocol analysis showed positive results for half of the clinical topics. The increase in total tests ordered was 3% in the intervention arm and 15% in the control arm. For prescribing the increase in prescriptions was 20% in the intervention arm and 66% in the control group. It was observed that the groups with the highest baseline test ordering and prescription volumes showed the largest improvements.ConclusionsOur study shows that the results from earlier work could not be confirmed by our attempt to implement the strategy in the field. We did not see a decrease in the volumes of tests ordered or of the drugs prescribed but were able to show a lesser increase instead. Implementing the peer review with audit and feedback proved to be not feasible in primary care in the Netherlands.Trial registrationThis trial was registered at the Dutch trial register under number ISRCTN40008171 on August 7th 2007.

Project description:BackgroundLaboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting.MethodsFive databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria.ResultsWe identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group.ConclusionsOur review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016051941.

Project description:BackgroundRedundant use of diagnostic tests in primary care has shown to be a contributor to rising Dutch healthcare costs. A price display in the test ordering system of the electronic health records (EHRs) could potentially be a low-cost and easy to implement intervention to a decrease in test ordering rate in the primary care setting by creating more cost-awareness among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a price display for diagnostic laboratory tests in the EHR on laboratory test ordering behavior of GPs in the Westelijke Mijnstreek region in the Netherlands.MethodsA pre-post intervention study among 154 GPs working in 57 general practices was conducted from September 2019, until March 2020, in the Netherlands. The intervention consisted of displaying the costs of 22 laboratory tests at the time of ordering. The primary outcome was the mean test ordering rate per 1.000 patients per month, per general practice.ResultsTest ordering rates were on average rising prior to the intervention. The total mean monthly test order volume showed a non-statistically significant interruption in this rising trend after the intervention, with the mean monthly test ordering rate levelling out from 322.4 to 322.2 (P = 0.86). A subgroup analysis for solely individually priced tests showed a statistically significant decrease in mean monthly test ordering rate after implementation of the price display for the sum of all tests from 67.2 to 63.3 (P = 0.01), as well as for some of these tests individually (i.e. thrombocytes, ALAT, TSH, folic acid). Leucocytes, ESR, vitamin B12, anti-CCP and NT-proBNP also showed a decrease, albeit not statistically significant (P > 0.05).ConclusionsOur study suggests that a price display intervention is a simple tool that can alter physicians order behavior and constrain the expanding use of laboratory tests. Future research might consider alternative study designs and a longer follow-up period. Furthermore, in future studies, the combination with a multitude of interventions, like educational programs and feedback strategies, should be studied, while potentially adverse events caused by reduced testing should also be taken into consideration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care. METHODS:This study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial. SETTING:Two hundred eighty general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium. PATIENTS:Patients aged ? 18?years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications: cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication. INTERVENTIONS:The CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician. MEASUREMENTS:The primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume, and cascade activities. RESULTS:CDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16-0.26, p < 0.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37-10.93, p = 0.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease-0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS:A CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142 , registered on October 25, 2016.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To characterise the test ordering pattern in Northern Portugal and to investigate the influence of context-related factors, analysing the test ordered at the level of geographical groups of family physicians and at the level of different healthcare organisations. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTING:Northern Primary Health Care, Portugal. PARTICIPANTS:Records about diagnostic and laboratory tests ordered from 2035 family physicians working at the Northern Regional Health Administration, who served approximately 3.5?million Portuguese patients, in 2014. OUTCOMES:To determine the 20 most ordered diagnostic and laboratory tests in the Northern Regional Health Administration; to identify the presence and extent of variations in the 20 most ordered diagnostic and laboratory tests between the Groups of Primary Care Centres and between health units; and to study factors that may explain these variations. RESULTS:The 20 most ordered diagnostic and laboratory tests almost entirely comprise laboratory tests and account for 70.9% of the total tests requested. We can trace a major pattern of test ordering for haemogram, glucose, lipid profile, creatinine and urinalysis. There was a significant difference (P<0.001) in test orders for all tests between Groups of Primary Care Centres and for all tests, except glycated haemoglobin (P=0.06), between health units. Generally, the Personalised Healthcare Units ordered more than Family Health Units. CONCLUSIONS:The results from this study show that the most commonly ordered tests in Portugal are laboratory tests, that there is a tendency for overtesting and that there is a large variability in diagnostic and laboratory test ordering in different geographical and organisational Portuguese primary care practices, suggesting that there may be considerable potential for the rationalisation of test ordering. The existence of Family Health Units seems to be a strong determinant in decreasing test ordering by Portuguese family physicians. Approaches to ensuring more rational testing are needed.

Dataset Information

Effect of Social Comparison Feedback on Laboratory Test Ordering for Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Effect of Social Comparison Feedback on Laboratory Test Ordering for Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets