Developing Benchmarking Metrics for Appropriate Ordering of Vitamin D, Thyroid Testing, and Iron Workups.

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI:10.1093/jalm/jfae126
Hsuan-Chieh Liao, Alec Saitman, Jane Dickerson
{"title":"Developing Benchmarking Metrics for Appropriate Ordering of Vitamin D, Thyroid Testing, and Iron Workups.","authors":"Hsuan-Chieh Liao, Alec Saitman, Jane Dickerson","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laboratory stewardship programs are increasingly adopted to enhance test utilization and improve patient care. Despite their potential, implementation within complex healthcare systems remains challenging. Benchmarking metrics helps institutions compare their performance against peers or best practices. However, the application in laboratory stewardship is underrepresented in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PLUGS (Patient-centered Laboratory Utiliazation Guidance Services) Informatics Working Group developed guidelines to address common test utilization issues. Metrics were based on data that are easily retrievable and calculable. Three key benchmarks were chosen for a pilot study: the ratio of 25-hydroxyvitamin D to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D test orders, the ratio of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) to free thyroxine (FT4) test orders, and the percentage of iron workup orders after an initial low mean corpuscular volume (MCV). Institutions analyzed their own data and we established optimal benchmarks through inter-laboratory comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine laboratories evaluated vitamin D testing, with 2 implementing stewardship interventions beforehand. A benchmark of 50:1 was established, where a higher ratio indicates intentional ordering of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Nine laboratories evaluated thyroid testing, with 3 implementing interventions. The benchmark of 3.5:1 was established, with a higher ratio suggesting judicious TSH ordering. Seven laboratories evaluated iron workups, proposing a benchmark of 50% as a starting metric. Intervention guidelines were provided for laboratories below the benchmarks to promote improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Benchmarking metrics provide a standardized framework for assessing and enhancing test utilization practices across multiple laboratories. Continued collaboration and refinement of benchmarking methodologies is essential in maximizing the impact of laboratory stewardship programs on patient safety and resource utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"184-191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laboratory stewardship programs are increasingly adopted to enhance test utilization and improve patient care. Despite their potential, implementation within complex healthcare systems remains challenging. Benchmarking metrics helps institutions compare their performance against peers or best practices. However, the application in laboratory stewardship is underrepresented in the literature.

Methods: The PLUGS (Patient-centered Laboratory Utiliazation Guidance Services) Informatics Working Group developed guidelines to address common test utilization issues. Metrics were based on data that are easily retrievable and calculable. Three key benchmarks were chosen for a pilot study: the ratio of 25-hydroxyvitamin D to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D test orders, the ratio of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) to free thyroxine (FT4) test orders, and the percentage of iron workup orders after an initial low mean corpuscular volume (MCV). Institutions analyzed their own data and we established optimal benchmarks through inter-laboratory comparisons.

Results: Nine laboratories evaluated vitamin D testing, with 2 implementing stewardship interventions beforehand. A benchmark of 50:1 was established, where a higher ratio indicates intentional ordering of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Nine laboratories evaluated thyroid testing, with 3 implementing interventions. The benchmark of 3.5:1 was established, with a higher ratio suggesting judicious TSH ordering. Seven laboratories evaluated iron workups, proposing a benchmark of 50% as a starting metric. Intervention guidelines were provided for laboratories below the benchmarks to promote improvement.

Conclusions: Benchmarking metrics provide a standardized framework for assessing and enhancing test utilization practices across multiple laboratories. Continued collaboration and refinement of benchmarking methodologies is essential in maximizing the impact of laboratory stewardship programs on patient safety and resource utilization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
Analytical Validation and Performance of a Blood-Based P-tau217 Diagnostic Test for Alzheimer Disease. Comparison of Referral Rates and Costs Using Fibrosis-4 and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) Testing Strategies for Initial Evaluation of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) in a Veteran Population. Determination of Positivity Cutoff for an Automated Aspergillus fumigatus-Specific Immunoglobulin-G Assay in a National Reference Laboratory. Revisiting the Environmental Impact of Inappropriate Clinical Laboratory Testing: A Comprehensive Overview of Sustainability, Economic, and Quality of Care Outcomes. What Is Diagnostic Stewardship?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1