Dataset Information

Potentially redundant repeat liver function test ordering practices in australian hospitals: A 5-year multicentre retrospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Repeat Liver Function Tests (LFTs) are often necessary for monitoring purposes, but retesting within a short time interval may suggest potentially redundant repeat test (PRRT) ordering practices. We aimed to determine the proportion of potentially redundant repeat LFT ordering and identify associated factors in hospitals.

Methods

A 5-year (2014-2018) retrospective cohort study in six hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. A total of 131 885 patient admissions with repeat LFTs in the general ward (n = 102 852) and intensive care unit (ICU) (n = 29 033) met the inclusion criteria. Existing guidelines do not support retesting LFT for at least 48-72 hours. We used 24 hours as a conservative minimum retesting interval to examine PRRT ordering. We fit binary logistic regression to identify factors associated with PRRT ordering in two conditions with the highest repeat LFTs.

Results

There were a total of 298 567 repeat LFTs (medians of 2 repeats/admission and retesting interval of 25.6 hours) in the general ward and 205 929 (medians of 4 repeats/admission and retesting interval of 24.1 hours) in the ICU. The proportions of PRRT ordering were 35.2% (105 227/298 567) and 47.7% (98 307/205 929) in the general ward and ICU, respectively. The proportions of patients who received at least one PRRT were 52.3% (53 766/102 852) and 83.9% (24 365/29 033) in the general ward and ICU, respectively. Age, gender and the number of comorbidities and procedures were associated with the likelihood of ordering PRRT depending on the settings.

Conclusion

Repeat LFT testing is common in Australian hospitals, often within 24 hours, despite guidelines not supporting too-early repeat testing. Further research should be conducted to understand whether better adherence to existing guidelines is required, or if there is any case for guidelines to be updated based on certain patient subpopulations.

SUBMITTER: Wabe N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8243922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDespite the burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among surgical patients on health systems in Australia, data on VTE incidence and its variation within Australia are lacking. We aim to explore VTE and subsequent mortality rates, trends and variations across Australian acute public hospitals.SettingA large retrospective cohort study using all elective surgical patients in 82 acute public hospitals during 2002-2009 in New South Wales, Australia.ParticipantsPatients underwent elective surgery within 2 days of admission, aged between 18 and 90 years, and who were not transferred to another acute care facility; 4 362 624 patients were included.Outcome measuresVTE incidents were identified by secondary diagnostic codes. Poisson mixed models were used to derive adjusted incidence rates and rate ratios (IRR).Results2/1000 patients developed postoperative VTE. VTE increased by 30% (IRR=1.30, CI 1.19 to 1.42) over the study period. Differences in the VTE rates, trends between hospital peer groups and between hospitals with the highest and those with the lowest rates were significant (between-hospital variation). Smaller hospitals, accommodated in two peer groups, had the lowest overall VTE rates (IRR=0.56:0.33 to 0.95; IRR=0.37:0.23 to 0.61) and exhibited a greater increase (64% and 237% vs 19%) overtime and greater between-hospital variations compared to larger hospitals (IRR=8.64:6.23 to 11.98; IRR=8.92:5.49 to 14.49 vs IRR=3.70:3.32 to 4.12). Mortality among patients with postoperative VTE was 8% and remained stable overtime. No differences in post-VTE death rates and trends were seen between hospital groups; however, larger hospitals exhibited less between-hospital variations (IRR=1.78:1.30 to 2.44) compared to small hospitals (IRR>23). Hospitals performed differently in prevention versus treatment of postoperative VTE.ConclusionsVTE incidence is increasing and there is large variation between-hospital and within-hospital peer groups suggesting a varied compliance with VTE preventative strategies and the potential for targeted interventions and quality improvement opportunities.

Project description:BackgroundStudies have revealed inappropriate laboratory testing as a source of waste. This review aimed at evaluating the effects and features of CDSSs on physicians' appropriate laboratory test ordering in inpatient hospitals.MethodMedline through PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried without any time period restriction. Studies using CDSSs as an intervention to improve laboratory test ordering as the primary aim were included. The study populations in the included studies were laboratory tests, physicians ordering laboratory tests, or the patients for whom laboratory tests were ordered. The included papers were evaluated for their outcomes related to the effect of CDSSs which were categorized based on the outcomes related to tests, physician, and patients. The primary outcome measures were the number and cost of the ordered laboratory tests. The instrument from The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Moreover, we applied a checklist for assessing the quality and features of the CDSSs presented in the included studies. A narrative synthesis was used to describe and compare the designs and the results of included studies.ResultSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted based on a quasi-experimental design. The results showed improvement in laboratory test-related outcomes (e.g. proportion and cost of tests) and also physician-related outcomes (e.g. guideline adherence and orders cancellation). Patient-related outcomes (e.g. length of stay and mortality rate) were not well investigated in the included studies. In addition, the evidence about applying CDSS as a decision aid for interpreting laboratory results was rare.ConclusionCDSSs increase appropriate test ordering in hospitals through eliminating redundant test orders and enhancing evidence-based practice. Appropriate testing and cost saving were both affected by the CDSSs. However, the evidence is limited about the effects of laboratory test CDSSs on patient-related outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The best way to determine nurse staffing requirements on hospital wards is unclear. This study explores the precision of estimates of nurse staffing requirements made using the Safer Nursing Care Tool (SNCT) patient classification system for different sample sizes and investigates whether recommended staff levels correspond with professional judgements of adequate staffing. DESIGN:Observational study linking datasets of staffing requirements (estimated using a tool) to professional judgements of adequate staffing. Multilevel logistic regression modelling. SETTING:81 medical/surgical units in four acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS:22?364 unit days where staffing levels and SNCT ratings were linked to nurse reports of "enough staff for quality". PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:SNCT-estimated staffing requirements and nurses' assessments of staffing adequacy. RESULTS:The recommended minimum sample of 20 days allowed the required number to employ (the establishment) to be estimated with a mean precision (defined as half the width of the CI as a percentage of the mean) of 4.1%. For most units, much larger samples were required to estimate establishments within ±1 whole time equivalent staff member. When staffing was lower than that required according to the SNCT, for each hour per patient day of registered nurse staffing below the required staffing level, the odds of nurses reporting that there were enough staff to provide quality care were reduced by 11%. Correspondingly, the odds of nurses reporting that necessary nursing care was left undone were increased by 14%. No threshold indicating an optimal staffing level was observed. Surgical specialty, patient turnover and more single rooms were associated with lower odds of staffing adequacy. CONCLUSIONS:The SNCT can provide reliable estimates of the number of nurses to employ on a unit, but larger samples than the recommended minimum are usually required. The SNCT provides a measure of nursing workload that correlates with professional judgements, but the recommended staffing levels may not be optimal. Some important sources of systematic variations in staffing requirements for some units are not accounted for. SNCT measurements are a potentially useful adjunct to professional judgement but cannot replace it. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN12307968.