3.8 Article

An assessment of overutilization and underutilization of laboratory tests by expert physicians in the evaluation of patients for bleeding and thrombotic disorders in clinical context and in real time

期刊

DIAGNOSIS
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 21-26

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/dx-2016-0042

关键词

coagulation; laboratory test selection; overutilization; underutilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Diagnostic error is extremely common in the USA and likely around the world. A major reason for the diagnostic error is both the overutilization and the underutilization of laboratory tests. Using a panel of two to four experts in coagulation, test selection was reviewed in clinical context and in real time, and consensus determinations were made to derive conclusions about the extent of overutilization and underutilization. Methods: Two hundred cases of patients being evaluated for bleeding or thrombotic issues were presented at each daily meeting of the diagnostic management team, and a review of each case for appropriate utilization of tests was completed. Results: Two hundred randomly selected cases revealed 77.5% diagnostic errors (155 cases). Sixteen percent were associated with overutilization of laboratory tests, 44% were associated with underutilization, and 17.5% were associated with both. The annual cost burden estimated for overutilization alone in one institution of 450 beds was on the order of $20,000. The cost burden for the delay in diagnosis or the misdiagnosis in cases with underutilization is orders of magnitude greater ($200,000 or more), but it is impossible to determine the cost of a misdiagnosis in an individual case because it can produce many different clinical outcomes. Conclusions: This was a rare opportunity for experts in a given field to review cases in real time and in clinical context and provide immediately a consensus answer about test utilization. The results of this study show errors in test selection in nearly 75% of the cases evaluated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据