Affiliation:
1. Department of Clinical Biochemistry , University Hospital of North Durham , North Road , Durham , County Durham , DH1 5TW , UK
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Minimum retesting intervals (MRI) are a popular demand management solution for the identification and reduction of over-utilized tests. In 2011 Association of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicines (ACB) published evidence-based recommendations for the use of MRI.
Aim
The aim of the paper was to review the use of MRI over the period since the introduction of these recommendations in 2011 to 2020 and compare it to previous published data between 2000-2010.
Methods
A multi-source literature search was performed to identify studies that reported the use of a MRI in the management or identification of inappropriate testing between the years prior to (2000–2010) and after implementation (2011–2020) of these recommendations.
Results
31 studies were identified which met the acceptance criteria (2000–2010 n=4, 2011–2020 n=27). Between 2000 and 2010 4.6% of tests (203,104/4,425,311) were identified as failing a defined MRI which rose to 11.8% of tests (2,691,591/22,777,288) in the 2011–2020 period. For those studies between 2011 and 2020 reporting predicted savings (n=20), 14.3% of tests (1,079,972/750,580) were cancelled, representing a total saving of 2.9 M Euros or 2.77 Euro/test. The most popular rejected test was Haemoglobin A1c which accounted for nearly a quarter of the total number of rejected tests. 13 out 27 studies used the ACB recommendations.
Conclusions
MRI are now an established, safe and sustainable demand management tool for the identification and management of inappropriate testing. Evidence based consensus recommendations have supported the adoption of this demand management tool into practice across multiple healthcare settings globally and harmonizing laboratory practice.
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine
Reference59 articles.
1. Greaves, R, Bernardini, S, Ferrari, M, Fortina, P, Gouget, B, Gruson, D, et al. Key questions about the future of laboratory medicine in the next decade of the 21st century: a report from the IFCC-Emerging Technologies Division. Clin Chim Acta 2019;495:570–89.
2. Mrazek, C, Simundic, A-M, Salinas, M, von Meyer, A, Cornes, M, Bauca, JM, et al. Inappropriate use of laboratory tests: how availability triggers demand – Examples across Europe. Clin Chim Acta 2020;505:100–7.
3. Lord Carter of Coles. Report of the second phase of the independent review of NHS pathology services; 2006. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130124044941/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_091984.pdf [Accessed 20 April 2020].
4. Plebani, M, Zaninotto, M, Faggian, D. Utilization management: a European perspective. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:137–41.
5. Encouraging quality pathology ordering in Australia’s public hospitals – final report; 2012. www.ncopp.org.au [Accessed 20 April 2020].
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献