Reflective testing – A randomized controlled trial in primary care patients

Author:

Oosterhuis Wytze P1,Venne Wilhelmine PHG Verboeket-van de1ORCID,Deursen Cees TBM van2ORCID,Stoffers Henri EJH3,Acker Bernadette AC van1,Bossuyt Patrick MM4

Affiliation:

1. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen/Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands

2. Department of Internal Medicine, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen/Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands

3. Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands

4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Abstract

Background Reflective testing, i.e. interpreting, commenting on and, if necessary, adding tests in order to aid the diagnostic process in a meaningful and efficient manner, is an extra service provided by laboratory medicine. However, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials investigating the value of reflective testing in patient management. Methods In this trial, primary care patients were randomly allocated to an intervention group, where general practitioners received laboratory tests results as requested as well as add-on test results with interpretative comments where considered appropriate by the laboratory specialist, or to a control group, where general practitioners only received the laboratory test results requested. Patients’ medical records were evaluated with a follow-up period of six months. For both groups, the primary outcome measures, i.e. both intended action and actual management action, were blindly assessed by an independent expert panel as adequate, neutral or inadequate. Results In 226 of the 270 cases (84%), reflective testing was considered to be useful for the patient. In the intervention group ( n = 148), actual management by the general practitioner was scored as adequate ( n = 104; 70%), neutral ( n = 29; 20%) or not adequate ( n = 15; 10%). In the control group ( n = 122), these numbers were 57 (47%), 37 (30%) and 28 (23%). This difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Conclusion This randomized controlled trial showed a positive effect of reflective testing in primary care patients on the adequacy of their management, as documented in medical records.

Funder

SKMS (Stichting Kwaliteitsgelden Medisch Specialisten), the Netherlands

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3