Adherence to Choosing Wisely Campaign Guidelines at Three Health Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 156 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S119-S119
Author(s):  
A K Windham ◽  
M Whitted ◽  
B Brimhall ◽  
J Buckley ◽  
G Nichols ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
The United States ◽  
Choosing Wisely ◽  
Variable Cost ◽  
Clinical Laboratory Testing ◽  
Unnecessary Testing

Abstract Introduction/Objective With rising healthcare costs in the United States, there has been a push for lab stewardship to improve the quality of patient care while reducing costs. To optimize the use of clinical laboratory testing, the ASCP working with other medical specialty organizations, developed the Choosing Wisely Campaign to promulgate evidence-based guidelines to optimize clinical laboratory testing. Methods/Case Report We examined adherence to three Choosing Wisely guidelines over a four-year period (2017- 2020), through queries of internal cost accounting databases to return aggregate volumes as well as variable and total costs at three large academic health systems. We measured concurrent orders for: 1) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) with C-reactive protein (CRP), 2) serum/plasma amylase with lipase, and 3) free thyroxine (FT4) and/or total triiodothyronine (TT3) with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) when the TSH is within the reference range (using an frequency estimate of 85% based on other studies). We also examined another guideline for concurrent orders for serum aldolase with creatine kinase (CK). We also quantified aggregate variable costs for the non-recommended test in each Choosing Wisely guideline (amylase, ESR, FT4 and/or TT3), and for serum aldolase when ordered with CK. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Over the four-year period, there were 322,853 unnecessary tests based on these four guidelines (120,587 ESR and CRP, 30,444 amylase and lipase, 164,818 FT4 and/or TT3 with TSH, and 7,004 aldolase). Overall, unnecessary testing decreased between 2017 and 2020 for amylase with lipase, remained essentially unchanged for aldolase, and increased for the other two test guideline scenarios. The largest changes were concurrent orders for amylase and lipase at one health system (38% decrease), and orders for TT3 with a normal TSH result at another health system (324% increase). The four-year variable cost of these unnecessary tests was $1,215,309 ($303,827 mean annual cost), resulting in potential annual variable cost savings of $101,276 for each health system for the four guidelines we examined. Variable costs for unnecessary testing increased by 16.5% ($45,571) over the four-year period. Conclusion Guideline-based unnecessary testing remains as a target to improve laboratory diagnostic testing. There is potential to realize significant achievable cost savings if guidelines are implemented and maintained.

National Inventory of Clinical Laboratory Testing Services (NICLTS)

2000 ◽  
Vol 124 (8) ◽  
pp. 1201-1208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Steindel ◽  
William J. Rauch ◽  
Marianne K. Simon ◽  
James Handsfield
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Complexity ◽  
Specimen Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Clinical Laboratory Testing

Abstract Context.—A statistically valid inventory of the distribution, both geographic and by laboratory type, of clinical and anatomical laboratory testing in the United States is needed to assess the impact of the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988 and to provide information for other health care and public health policy decisions. Objective.—To present initial US laboratory testing volume data compiled by the National Inventory of Clinical Laboratory Testing Services. Design.—Stratified random sample of laboratories performing testing in 1996 with data on the number of laboratory tests performed, identified by method and analyte. Data were collected by field tabulators (moderate- or high-complexity laboratories) or through a mail/telephone survey (waived or provider-performed microscopy laboratories) for each site. Participants.—Laboratories that were enrolled in the 1996 Online Certification Survey and Reporting System, maintained by the US Health Care Finance Administration, and that performed laboratory testing during 1996. Main Outcome Measure.—Laboratory testing distribution for 1996 in the United States by analyte, method, and specimen type. Results.—An overall response rate of 79% provided data from 757 moderate- or high-complexity laboratories and 1322 waived or provider-performed microscopy laboratories. The estimated total US testing volume for 1996 was 7.25 ± 1.09 billion tests. Laboratories performing complex testing, defined as greater than 16 method/analyte/specimen type combinations, comprised 16% of the US laboratories by survey site, but performed 80% (95% confidence limits, 43% to 100%) of the testing volume. Glucose analysis was the most frequently performed test. Automated hematology and chemistry analyzers were the most frequently used methods. Conclusions.—A statistically valid, consistent survey of the distribution of US laboratory testing was obtained. Simple analysis of these data by laboratory type and geographic region can provide insights into where laboratory testing is performed. The study design allows extensions that will facilitate collection of additional data of importance to public health and medical care delivery.

scholarly journals Multi-Health System Comparison of Diagnostic Testing in Hospitalized Sepsis Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 156 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S120-S121
Author(s):  
B Brimhall ◽  
M Whitted ◽  
A Windham ◽  
A Podichetty ◽  
S Shifarraw
Keyword(s):  
Health Systems ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Diagnosis Related Groups ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Imaging Studies ◽  
Imaging Utilization

Abstract Introduction/Objective Comparisons of diagnostic testing across multiple health systems over multiple years are uncommon. Such comparisons would quantify variations in test use between health systems. Methods/Case Report Using the Vizient Clinical Database, we compared clinical laboratory and imaging utilization for hospitalized adult sepsis patients (N = 69,035) over three years (2017-2019) at 19 large academic-affiliated health systems across the United States. We used Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups (MSDRG), employed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and identified sepsis patients (MSDRG triplet 870/871/872). We stratified hospitalized sepsis patients by severity of illness (SOI) into high severity (MSDRG 870), moderate severity (MSDRG 871), and low severity (MSDRG 872) groups. SOI further categorizes patients within a diagnostic group, quantifying the extent of comorbid conditions and complications. We measured hospital length of stay (LOS), number of laboratory tests (CPT codes 80000-89999), and number of imaging studies (CPT codes 70000-79999). We divided the number of laboratory tests and radiology studies by mean hospital LOS (in days) to calculate laboratory tests and imaging studies per hospital day. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Between health systems, lowest and highest values for laboratory and imaging utilization ranged from 50.1 to 141.3 tests per hospitalization and 1.4 to 7.2 studies per hospitalization, respectively. Differences in laboratory tests between health systems persisted after adjusting for SOI with low to high laboratory tests per hospitalization ranging from 127.8 to 405.7, 51.0 to 144.7, and 31.9 to 78.2, for high, moderate, and low SOI groups. Utilization ranges were smaller for imaging studies. After adjusting for hospital LOS, laboratory testing differences between health systems were more pronounced and with low and high laboratory test per day utilization of 6.5 to 24.3, 6.1 to 18.5, and 6.0 to 17.1, for high, moderate, and low SOI groups. Differences in radiology studies were not as pronounced after adjusting for LOS. Conclusion There is considerable variation among health systems in laboratory and radiology resource utilization for hospitalized sepsis patients. This variation persists, especially for laboratory testing, after adjusting for SOI and LOS.

CDC and Clinical Laboratory Partners: Analysis of Biosafety Gaps Revealed During the Ebola Outbreak

2019 ◽  
Vol 152 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S139-S139
Author(s):  
Nancy Cornish ◽  
Sheldon Campbell ◽  
Elizabeth Weirich
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Competency Assessment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Laboratories ◽  
Clinical Laboratory Testing

Abstract Objectives Patient care and public health in the United States depend on timely and reliable clinical laboratory testing. A third of the roughly 500 million yearly patient visits to health care providers involve at least one laboratory test, and approximately 70% of medical decisions are based upon test results. However, the performance of clinical laboratory testing could be compromised by patient specimens potentially contaminated with highly infectious materials. The importance of biosafety in clinical laboratories was highlighted during the 2014 Ebola crisis, where fears about safety resulted in some institutions refusing or delaying tests on patient specimens, which resulted in delayed diagnoses and contributed to patient deaths. Methods In collaboration with subject matter experts from academia, medical centers, and federal institutions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reviewed the capability of clinical laboratories to safely test patient specimens potentially contaminated with highly infectious materials, like Ebola. Current biosafety guidance for clinical laboratories has been largely based on biosafety practices in research laboratories, so the guidelines do not always correspond to clinical laboratories and may be incomplete or occasionally inconsistent. While essential to patient care, clinical laboratories are also unique environments with specialized equipment, processes, and therefore distinct challenges. Here we discuss the complexity of clinical laboratories and describe how applying current biosafety guidance to clinical laboratories may be difficult and confusing at best or inappropriate and harmful at worst. We describe biosafety gaps and opportunities for improvement in the areas of ethics; risk assessment and management; automated and manual laboratory disciplines; specimen collection, processing, and storage; test utilization; waste management; laboratory personnel training and competency assessment; and accreditation processes. Conclusion These identified gaps in knowledge and practice could inform future research and education in clinical laboratory biosafety.

Valuing Diversity and Inclusion in Healthcare: Pathways to Equip Workforces in the Post-COVID-19 New Normal (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiban Khuntia ◽  
Xue Ning ◽  
Wayne Cascio ◽  
Rulon Stacey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
New Normal ◽  
Diversity And Inclusion ◽  
Healthcare Workforce ◽  
The Us ◽  
Service Oriented

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic, with all its virus variants, remains a serious situation. Health systems across the United States are trying their best to respond. The healthcare workforce remains relatively homogenous, even though they are caring for a highly diverse array of patients (6-12). It is a perennial problem in the US healthcare workforce that has only been accentuated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical workers should reflect the variety of patients they care for and strive to understand their mindsets within the larger contexts of culture, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and socioeconomic realities. Along with talent and skills, diversity and inclusion (D&I) are essential for maintaining a workforce that can treat the myriad needs and populations that health systems serve. Developing hiring strategies in a post-COVID-19 “new normal” that will help achieve greater workforce diversity remains a challenge for health system leaders. OBJECTIVE Our primary objectives are (1) to explore the characteristics and perceived benefits of US health systems that value D&I; (2) to examine the influence of a workforce strategy designed to balance talent and D&I; and (3) to explore three pathways to better equip workforces and their relative influences on business- and service-oriented benefits: (a) improving D&I among existing employees (IMPROVE), (b) using multiple channels to find and recruit a workforce (RECRUIT), and (c) collaborating with universities to find new talent and establish plans to train students (COLLABORATE). METHODS During February–March 2021, we surveyed 625 health system chief executive officers, in the United States, 135 (22%) of whom responded. We assessed workforce talent and diversity-relevant factors. We collected secondary data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Compendium of the US. Health Systems, leading to a matched data set of 124 health systems for analysis. We first explored differences in talent and diversity benefits across the health systems. Then, we examined the relationship between IMPROVE, RECRUIT, and COLLABORATE pathways to equip the workforce. RESULTS Health system characteristics, such as size, location, ownership, teaching, and revenue, have varying influences on D&I and business and service outcomes. RECRUIT has the most substantial mediating effect on diversity-enabled business- and service-oriented outcomes of the three pathways. This is also true of talent-based workforce acquisitions. CONCLUSIONS Diversity and talent plans can be aligned to realize multiple desired benefits for health systems. However, a one-size-fits-all approach is not a viable strategy for improving D&I. Health systems need to follow a multipronged approach based on their characteristics. To get D&I right, proactive plans and genuine efforts are essential.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document