4.3 Review

Effectiveness of Practices to Support Appropriate Laboratory Test Utilization A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 149, Issue 3, Pages 197-221

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/AJCP/AQX147

Keywords

Clinical decision-making; Clinical laboratory services; Laboratory diagnosis; Laboratory medicine; Laboratory test utilization; Meta-analysis; Quality assurance; Quality improvement; Systematic review; Test ordering; Utilization management; Utilization review

Categories

Funding

  1. CDC [HHSD2002013M53968B/2002013F57569]
  2. [200-2010-37203]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of practices used to support appropriate clinical laboratory test utilization. Methods: This review followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Laboratory Medicine Best Practices A6 cycle method. Eligible studies assessed one of the following practices for effect on outcomes relating to over- or underutilization: computerized provider order entry (CPOE), clinical decision support systems/tools (CDSS/CDST), education, feedback, test review, reflex testing, laboratory test utilization (LTU) teams, and any combination of these practices. Eligible outcomes included intermediate, systems outcomes (eg, number of tests ordered/performed and cost of tests), as well as patient-related outcomes (eg, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, morbidity, and mortality). Results: Eighty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Fifty-one of these studies could be meta-analyzed. Strength of evidence ratings for each practice ranged from high to insufficient. Conclusion: Practice recommendations are made for CPOE (specifically, modifications to existing CPOE), reflex testing, and combined practices. No recommendation for or against could be made for CDSS/CDST, education, feedback, test review, and LTU. Findings from this review serve to inform guidance for future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available