American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality最新文献

Oncology patients presenting for outpatient evaluation of a respiratory tract infection (RTI) are often tested for a variety of viruses with a respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) in addition to influenza and SARS-CoV-2. This triad of testing is expensive and uncomfortable because it requires 2 nasal swabs. Little evidence supports the use of an RPP in outpatient settings, but it is routinely ordered. This retrospective chart review analyzed 183 RPPs performed at Jefferson between April 2020 and November 2021 in outpatient oncology patients presenting with RTI. Data collected included patient demographics, symptoms, and exam findings at time of RPP, additional testing completed, results of RPP, antibiotic and antiviral use before and after RPP results, and patient outcomes 30 days after RPP. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Of the 183 RPPs analyzed, 16.9% (31) were positive for at least 1 respiratory virus. Fifty-two patients (28.4%) started antibiotics before results of the RPP. Of those, 2 patients (3.8%) had a change in antibiotic plan after RPP results returned. Zero patients were started on antiviral medication before results of the RPP. One patient started antiviral treatment after RPP results returned. In total, only 3 patients (1.6%) had an RPP-driven change in medication management. This study suggests limited utility in use of RPPs for oncology patients presenting to the office with RTI symptoms. Targeted testing with a single nasal swab for influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 may be more clinically relevant. The authors hope to use these data to implement a quality improvement initiative to reduce RPP utilization in this population.

Background: Healthcare spending continues to be an area of improvement across all forms of medicine. Overtreatment or low-value care, including overutilization of laboratory testing, has an estimated annual cost of waste of $75.7-$101.2 billion annually. Providing performance feedback to hospitalists has been shown to be an effective way to encourage the practice of quality-improvement-focused medicine. There remains limited data regarding the implementation of performance feedback and direct results on hospital laboratory testing spending in the short term.

Objective: The objective of this project was to identify whether performance-based feedback on laboratory utilization between both hospitalists and resident teams results in more conservative utilization of laboratory testing.

Design, setting, participants: This quality improvement project was conducted at a tertiary academic medical center, including both direct-care and house-staff teams.

Intervention or exposure: A weekly performance feedback report was generated and distributed to providers detailing laboratory test utilization by all hospitalists in a ranked system, normalized by the census of patients, for 3 months.

Main outcomes and measures: The outcome measure was cumulative laboratory utilization during the intervention period compared to baseline utilization during the corresponding 3 months in the year prior and the weekly trend in laboratory utilization over 52 weeks. The aggregate laboratory utilization rate during intervention and control time periods was defined as the total number of laboratory tests ordered divided by the total number of patient encounters. Additionally, the cost difference was averaged per quarter and reported. The week-by-week trend in laboratory utilization was evaluated using a statistical process control (SPC) chart.

Results: We found that following intervention during January-March 2020, the cumulative complete blood count utilization rate decreased from 5.54 to 4.83 per patient encounter and the basic metabolic panels/CMP utilization rate decreased from 6.65 to 6.11 per patient encounter compared with January-March 2019. This equated to cost savings of ~$42,700 in total for the quarter. Nonrandom variation was seen on SPC charts in weekly laboratory utilization rates for common laboratory tests during the intervention period.

Conclusions: We found that our intervention did result in a decrease in laboratory test utilization rates across direct-care and house-staff teams. This study lays promising groundwork for one tool that can be used to eliminate a source of hospital waste and improve the quality and efficiency of patient care.