专家如何确定对考试排序进行干预?一项访谈研究。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1515/cclm-2024-0948
Eyal Podolsky, Natasha Hudek, Nicola McCleary, Christopher McCudden, Justin Presseau, Jamie C Brehaut
{"title":"专家如何确定对考试排序进行干预?一项访谈研究。","authors":"Eyal Podolsky, Natasha Hudek, Nicola McCleary, Christopher McCudden, Justin Presseau, Jamie C Brehaut","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-0948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Lab testing is a high-volume activity that is often overused, leading to wasted resources and inappropriate care. Improving test ordering practices in tertiary care involves deciding where to focus scarce intervention resources, but clear guidance on how to optimize these resources is lacking. We aimed to explore context-sensitive factors and processes that inform individual decisions about laboratory stewardship interventions by speaking to key interest holders in this area.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semi-structured interviews with test-ordering intervention development experts and authors of test-ordering guidance documents to explore five broad topics: 1) processes used to prioritize tests for intervention; 2) factors considered when deciding which tests to target; 3) measurement of these factors; 4) interventions selected; 5) suggestions for a framework to support these decisions. Transcripts were double coded using directed-content and thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 14 intervention development experts. Experts noted they frequently consider test volume, test value, and patient care when deciding on a test to target. Experts indicated that quantifying many relevant factors was challenging. Processes to support these decisions often involved examining local data, obtaining buy-in, and relying on an existing guideline. Suggestions for building a framework emphasized the importance of collaboration, consideration of context and resources, and starting with \"easy wins\" to gain support and experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study provides insight into the factors and processes experts consider when deciding which tests to target for intervention and can inform the development of a framework to guide the selection of tests for intervention and guideline development.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do experts determine where to intervene on test ordering? An interview study.\",\"authors\":\"Eyal Podolsky, Natasha Hudek, Nicola McCleary, Christopher McCudden, Justin Presseau, Jamie C Brehaut\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cclm-2024-0948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Lab testing is a high-volume activity that is often overused, leading to wasted resources and inappropriate care. Improving test ordering practices in tertiary care involves deciding where to focus scarce intervention resources, but clear guidance on how to optimize these resources is lacking. We aimed to explore context-sensitive factors and processes that inform individual decisions about laboratory stewardship interventions by speaking to key interest holders in this area.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semi-structured interviews with test-ordering intervention development experts and authors of test-ordering guidance documents to explore five broad topics: 1) processes used to prioritize tests for intervention; 2) factors considered when deciding which tests to target; 3) measurement of these factors; 4) interventions selected; 5) suggestions for a framework to support these decisions. Transcripts were double coded using directed-content and thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 14 intervention development experts. Experts noted they frequently consider test volume, test value, and patient care when deciding on a test to target. Experts indicated that quantifying many relevant factors was challenging. Processes to support these decisions often involved examining local data, obtaining buy-in, and relying on an existing guideline. Suggestions for building a framework emphasized the importance of collaboration, consideration of context and resources, and starting with \\\"easy wins\\\" to gain support and experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study provides insight into the factors and processes experts consider when deciding which tests to target for intervention and can inform the development of a framework to guide the selection of tests for intervention and guideline development.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0948\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0948","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:实验室检验是一项工作量很大的工作,但经常被过度使用,导致资源浪费和不当护理。改善三级医疗机构的检验订购实践需要决定将稀缺的干预资源集中在哪里,但目前还缺乏关于如何优化这些资源的明确指导。我们的目的是通过与这一领域的主要利益相关者交谈,探索个人决定实验室监管干预措施的背景敏感因素和过程:我们对试验排序干预措施开发专家和试验排序指导文件的作者进行了半结构化访谈,探讨了五大主题:1) 确定干预测试优先次序的过程;2) 决定针对哪些测试时考虑的因素;3) 对这些因素的衡量;4) 选择的干预措施;5) 对支持这些决定的框架的建议。采用定向内容和主题分析法对记录誊本进行双重编码:我们采访了 14 位干预措施开发专家。专家们指出,在决定测试目标时,他们经常会考虑测试量、测试价值和患者护理。专家们表示,量化许多相关因素具有挑战性。支持这些决策的程序通常包括检查当地数据、获得支持以及依赖现有指南。关于建立框架的建议强调了合作、考虑背景和资源的重要性,以及从 "易胜 "开始以获得支持和经验的重要性:我们的研究深入探讨了专家们在决定针对哪些检验进行干预时所考虑的因素和过程,并可为制定框架提供参考,从而指导检验干预的选择和指南的制定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How do experts determine where to intervene on test ordering? An interview study.

Objectives: Lab testing is a high-volume activity that is often overused, leading to wasted resources and inappropriate care. Improving test ordering practices in tertiary care involves deciding where to focus scarce intervention resources, but clear guidance on how to optimize these resources is lacking. We aimed to explore context-sensitive factors and processes that inform individual decisions about laboratory stewardship interventions by speaking to key interest holders in this area.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with test-ordering intervention development experts and authors of test-ordering guidance documents to explore five broad topics: 1) processes used to prioritize tests for intervention; 2) factors considered when deciding which tests to target; 3) measurement of these factors; 4) interventions selected; 5) suggestions for a framework to support these decisions. Transcripts were double coded using directed-content and thematic analysis.

Results: We interviewed 14 intervention development experts. Experts noted they frequently consider test volume, test value, and patient care when deciding on a test to target. Experts indicated that quantifying many relevant factors was challenging. Processes to support these decisions often involved examining local data, obtaining buy-in, and relying on an existing guideline. Suggestions for building a framework emphasized the importance of collaboration, consideration of context and resources, and starting with "easy wins" to gain support and experience.

Conclusions: Our study provides insight into the factors and processes experts consider when deciding which tests to target for intervention and can inform the development of a framework to guide the selection of tests for intervention and guideline development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
期刊最新文献
CD34+ progenitor cells meet metrology. Expanded carrier screening for 224 monogenic disease genes in 1,499 Chinese couples: a single-center study. Allowable total error in CD34 cell analysis by flow cytometry based on state of the art using Spanish EQAS data. Comparison of capillary finger stick and venous blood sampling for 34 routine chemistry analytes: potential for in the hospital and remote blood sampling. Diagnostic performances and cut-off verification of blood pTau 217 on the Lumipulse platform for amyloid deposition in Alzheimer's disease.
×
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