scholarly journals Laboratory test ordering in inpatient hospitals: a systematic review on the effects and features of clinical decision support systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahar Zare ◽  
Zahra Meidani ◽  
Mohammad Shirdeli ◽  
Ehsan Nabovati

Abstract Background: Studies 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.Method: Medline through PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried without any time period restriction. The outcomes related to the effect of CDSSs were categorized based on test-related, physician-related, and patient-related. Result: Sixteen 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. Also, the evidence about applying CDSS as a decision aid for interpreting laboratory results was rare.Conclusion: CDSSs 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.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahar Zare ◽  
Zahra Meidani ◽  
Mohammad Shirdeli ◽  
Ehsan Nabovati

Abstract Background: Studies have revealed inappropriate laboratory testing as a source of waste. This review was aimed to evaluate the effects and features of CDSSs on physicians' appropriate laboratory test ordering in inpatient hospitals.Method: Medline through PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried without any time period restriction. The outcomes were categorized based on test-related, physician-related, and patient-related. The primary outcome measures were the number and cost of laboratory test ordered.Result: Sixteen 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. Also, the evidence about applying CDSS as a decision aid for interpreting laboratory results was rare.Conclusion: CDSSs 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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahar Zare ◽  
Zahra Meidani ◽  
Mohammad Shirdeli ◽  
Ehsan Nabovati

Abstract Background: Studies 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.Method: Medline 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.Result: Sixteen 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.Conclusion: CDSSs 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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahar Zare ◽  
Zahra Meidani ◽  
Mohammad Shirdeli ◽  
Ehsan Nabovati

Abstract Background Studies 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. Method Medline 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. Result Sixteen 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. Conclusion CDSSs 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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahar Zare ◽  
Zahra Meidani ◽  
Mohammad Shirdeli ◽  
Ehsan Nabovati

Abstract Background: Studies 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.Method: Medline 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.Result: Sixteen 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.Conclusion: CDSSs 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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Katrien Van Thienen ◽  
Annemie Heselmans ◽  
Stijn Van de Velde ◽  
Dirk Ramaekers ◽  
...  

Context.— Inappropriate laboratory test ordering has been shown to be as high as 30%. This can have an important impact on quality of care and costs because of downstream consequences such as additional diagnostics, repeat testing, imaging, prescriptions, surgeries, or hospital stays. Objective.— To evaluate the effect of computerized clinical decision support systems on appropriateness of laboratory test ordering. Data Sources.— We used MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Inspec through December 2015. Investigators independently screened articles to identify randomized trials that assessed a computerized clinical decision support system aimed at improving laboratory test ordering by providing patient-specific information, delivered in the form of an on-screen management option, reminder, or suggestion through a computerized physician order entry using a rule-based or algorithm-based system relying on an evidence-based knowledge resource. Investigators extracted data from 30 papers about study design, various study characteristics, study setting, various intervention characteristics, involvement of the software developers in the evaluation of the computerized clinical decision support system, outcome types, and various outcome characteristics. Conclusions.— Because of heterogeneity of systems and settings, pooled estimates of effect could not be made. Data showed that computerized clinical decision support systems had little or no effect on clinical outcomes but some effect on compliance. Computerized clinical decision support systems targeted at laboratory test ordering for multiple conditions appear to be more effective than those targeted at a single condition.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 2880
Author(s):  
Miguel Pereira ◽  
Patricia Concheiro-Moscoso ◽  
Alexo López-Álvarez ◽  
Gerardo Baños ◽  
Alejandro Pazos ◽  
...  

The advances achieved in recent decades regarding cardiac surgery have led to a new risk that goes beyond surgeons' dexterity; postoperative hours are crucial for cardiac surgery patients and are usually spent in intensive care units (ICUs), where the patients need to be continuously monitored to adjust their treatment. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been developed to take this real-time information and provide clinical suggestions to physicians in order to reduce medical errors and to improve patient recovery. In this review, an initial total of 499 papers were considered after identification using PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Twenty-two studies were included after filtering, which included the deletion of duplications and the exclusion of titles or abstracts that were not of real interest. A review of these papers concluded the applicability and advances that CDSSs offer for both doctors and patients. Better prognosis and recovery rates are achieved by using this technology, which has also received high acceptance among most physicians. However, despite the evidence that well-designed CDSSs are effective, they still need to be refined to offer the best assistance possible, which may still take time, despite the promising models that have already been applied in real ICUs.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Veerle Piessens ◽  
Tine De Burghgraeve ◽  
Pavlos Mamouris ◽  
Bert Vaes ◽  
...  

Abstract 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 280 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<.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37 - 10.93, p=.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, 2016Funding source This study was funded through the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) Trials Programme agreement KCE16011.


Author(s):  
Neurilene Batista de Oliveira ◽  
Heloísa Helena Ciqueto Peres

Objective: to compare the quality of the Nursing process documentation in two versions of a clinical decision support system. Method: a quantitative and quasi-experimental study of the before-and-after type. The instrument used to measure the quality of the records was the Brazilian version of the Quality of Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes, which has four domains and a maximum score of 58 points. A total of 81 records were evaluated in version I (pre-intervention), as well as 58 records in version II (post-intervention), and the scores obtained in the two applications were compared. The interventions consisted of planning, pilot implementation of version II of the system, training and monitoring of users. The data were analyzed in the R software, using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: the mean obtained at the pre-intervention moment was 38.24 and, after the intervention, 46.35 points. There was evidence of statistical difference between the means of the pre- and post-intervention groups, since the p-value was below 0.001 in the four domains evaluated. Conclusion: the quality of the documentation of the Nursing process in version II of the system was superior to version I. The efficacy of the system and the effectiveness of the interventions were verified. This study can contribute to the quality of documentation, care management, visibility of nursing actions and patient safety.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Veerle Piessens ◽  
Tine De Burghgraeve ◽  
Pavlos Mamouris ◽  
Bert Vaes ◽  
...  

Abstract 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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document