Grace M. Kroner PhD , Sandy Richman MBA , Andrew Fletcher MD, MBA , Jane Dickerson PhD , Brian R. Jackson MD, MS
{"title":"临床化验室检验方法应用现状","authors":"Grace M. Kroner PhD , Sandy Richman MBA , Andrew Fletcher MD, MBA , Jane Dickerson PhD , Brian R. Jackson MD, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.acpath.2022.100039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Appropriate laboratory test utilization is of growing interest in the face of rising healthcare costs and documented evidence of over- and under-utilization. Building from published literature, laboratory organizations have recently published guidelines for establishing laboratory utilization management programs. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently struggled to define rigorous evidence-based best practice recommendations due to the paucity of published data or the heterogeneity of available data. We sought to gain information about utilization practices and programs currently in use and which factors contribute to their success by distributing a survey among laboratory professionals. The survey received seventy-four eligible respondents. We observed a wide range in the duration of laboratory utilization programs and the number of stewardship initiatives. In addition, there was great variety in the utilization practices used and the tests or processes targeted by programs. There was similarity in how initiatives are evaluated and who is involved with utilization programs. Finally, respondents often credited a multidisciplinary committee, support from leadership, and strong IT support/data access as important factors for their program's perceived success. Many of these factors agree with previously published literature.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44927,"journal":{"name":"Academic Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8b/f8/main.PMC9379979.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current state of laboratory test utilization practices in the clinical laboratory\",\"authors\":\"Grace M. Kroner PhD , Sandy Richman MBA , Andrew Fletcher MD, MBA , Jane Dickerson PhD , Brian R. Jackson MD, MS\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acpath.2022.100039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Appropriate laboratory test utilization is of growing interest in the face of rising healthcare costs and documented evidence of over- and under-utilization. Building from published literature, laboratory organizations have recently published guidelines for establishing laboratory utilization management programs. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently struggled to define rigorous evidence-based best practice recommendations due to the paucity of published data or the heterogeneity of available data. We sought to gain information about utilization practices and programs currently in use and which factors contribute to their success by distributing a survey among laboratory professionals. The survey received seventy-four eligible respondents. We observed a wide range in the duration of laboratory utilization programs and the number of stewardship initiatives. In addition, there was great variety in the utilization practices used and the tests or processes targeted by programs. There was similarity in how initiatives are evaluated and who is involved with utilization programs. Finally, respondents often credited a multidisciplinary committee, support from leadership, and strong IT support/data access as important factors for their program's perceived success. Many of these factors agree with previously published literature.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8b/f8/main.PMC9379979.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2374289522000288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2374289522000288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Current state of laboratory test utilization practices in the clinical laboratory
Appropriate laboratory test utilization is of growing interest in the face of rising healthcare costs and documented evidence of over- and under-utilization. Building from published literature, laboratory organizations have recently published guidelines for establishing laboratory utilization management programs. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently struggled to define rigorous evidence-based best practice recommendations due to the paucity of published data or the heterogeneity of available data. We sought to gain information about utilization practices and programs currently in use and which factors contribute to their success by distributing a survey among laboratory professionals. The survey received seventy-four eligible respondents. We observed a wide range in the duration of laboratory utilization programs and the number of stewardship initiatives. In addition, there was great variety in the utilization practices used and the tests or processes targeted by programs. There was similarity in how initiatives are evaluated and who is involved with utilization programs. Finally, respondents often credited a multidisciplinary committee, support from leadership, and strong IT support/data access as important factors for their program's perceived success. Many of these factors agree with previously published literature.
期刊介绍:
Academic Pathology is an open access journal sponsored by the Association of Pathology Chairs, established to give voice to the innovations in leadership and management of academic departments of Pathology. These innovations may have impact across the breadth of pathology and laboratory medicine practice. Academic Pathology addresses methods for improving patient care (clinical informatics, genomic testing and data management, lab automation, electronic health record integration, and annotate biorepositories); best practices in inter-professional clinical partnerships; innovative pedagogical approaches to medical education and educational program evaluation in pathology; models for training academic pathologists and advancing academic career development; administrative and organizational models supporting the discipline; and leadership development in academic medical centers, health systems, and other relevant venues. Intended authorship and audiences for Academic Pathology are international and reach beyond academic pathology itself, including but not limited to healthcare providers, educators, researchers, and policy-makers.