Audit and feedback to improve laboratory test and transfusion ordering in critical care: a systematic review

Interventions to improve appropriateness of laboratory testing in the intensive care unit: a narrative review

Healthcare expenses are increasing, as is the utilization of laboratory resources. Despite this, between 20% and 40% of requested tests are deemed inappropriate. Improper use of laboratory resources leads to unwanted consequences such as hospital-acquired anemia, infections, increased costs, staff workload and patient stress and discomfort. The most unfavorable consequences result from unnecessary follow-up tests and treatments (overuse) and missed or delayed diagnoses (underuse). In this context, several interventions have been carried out to improve the appropriateness of laboratory testing. To date, there have been few published assessments of interventions specific to the intensive care unit. We reviewed the literature for interventions implemented in the ICU to improve the appropriateness of laboratory testing. We searched literature from 2008 to 2023 in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases between April and June 2023. Five intervention categories were identified: education and guidance (E&G), audit and feedback, gatekeeping, computerized physician order entry (including reshaping of ordering panels), and multifaceted interventions (MFI). We included a sixth category exploring the potential role of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML)-based assisting tools in such interventions. E&G-based interventions and MFI are the most frequently used approaches. MFI is the most effective type of intervention, and shows the strongest persistence of effect over time. AI/ML-based tools may offer valuable assistance to the improvement of appropriate laboratory testing in the near future. Patient safety outcomes are not impaired by interventions to reduce inappropriate testing. The literature focuses mainly on reducing overuse of laboratory tests, with only one intervention mentioning underuse. We highlight an overall poor quality of methodological design and reporting and argue for standardization of intervention methods. Collaboration between clinicians and laboratory staff is key to improve appropriate laboratory utilization. This article offers practical guidance for optimizing the effectiveness of an intervention protocol designed to limit inappropriate use of laboratory resources.

Audit and feedback interventions involving pharmacists to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacists, as experts in medicines, are increasingly employed in general practices and undertake a range of responsibilities. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are effective in achieving behaviour change, including prescribing. The extent of pharmacist involvement in A&F interventions to influence prescribing is unknown. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of A&F interventions involving pharmacists on prescribing in general practice compared with no A&F/usual care and to describe features of A&F interventions and pharmacist characteristics.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (Social) Science Citation Indexes, ISI Web of Science) were searched (2012, 2019, 2020). Cochrane systematic review methods were applied to trial identification, selection, and risk of bias. Results were summarized descriptively and heterogeneity was assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted where studies were sufficiently homogenous in design and outcome.

RESULTS

Eleven cluster-randomized studies from 9 countries were included. Risk of bias across most domains was low. Interventions focussed on older patients, specific clinical area(s), or specific medications. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed improved prescribing outcomes (pooled risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.94). Interventions including both verbal and written feedback or computerized decision support for prescribers were more effective. Pharmacists who received study-specific training, provided ongoing support to prescribers or reviewed prescribing for individual patients, contributed to more effective interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

A&F interventions involving pharmacists can lead to small improvements in evidence-based prescribing in general practice settings. Future implementation of A&F within general practice should compare different ways of involving pharmacists to determine how to optimize effectiveness.PRISMA-compliant abstract included in Supplementary Material 1.

Assessment of factors influencing physicians' intention to prescribe transfusion using the theory of planned behavior

BACKGROUND

Blood shortage is a persistent problem affecting Taiwan's health-care system. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) has been commonly used in studies of health advocacy. The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire measuring clinicians' intention to prescribe transfusion based on the TPB.

METHOD

A questionnaire comprising 15 items for assessing clinicians' intention to prescribe blood transfusion was developed, and it collected demographic characteristics, tested patient blood management (PBM) and perceived knowledge of PBM. Furthermore, the questionnaire contained four subscales related to the TPB. A total of 129 clinicians participated in this pilot study between July and December2020. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis were conducted to examine the validity and reliability of this measurement instrument.

RESULTS

The results indicated no statistically significant correlations between the demographic characteristics and PBM test scores. Regarding perceived knowledge, the results of a one-way analysis of variance revealed that the effect of age, hierarchy of doctors, and education level were significant. In terms of subjective norms, a significant effect on education level was noted [t (129) = 2.28, p < 0.05], with graduate school graduates receiving higher scores than college graduates. An analysis of variance demonstrated the effects of hierarchy, education level, and medical specialty on perceived behavioral control. The results of the regression analyses revealed that perceived knowledge (β = 0.32, p < 0.01) and subjective norms (β = 0.22, p < 0.05) were significantly related to clinicians' behavioral intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that factors affecting clinicians' blood transfusion management can be explained using the TPB-based questionnaire. This study demonstrated that physicians' perceptions of whether most people approve of PBM and their self-assessment of their PBM knowledge affect their intentions to proceed with PBM. According to this finding, a support system among physicians must be established and maintained to increase physicians' confidence in promoting PBM.

Repurposing the Ordering of Routine Laboratory Tests in Hospitalised Medical Patients (RePORT): results of a cluster randomised stepped-wedge quality improvement study

BACKGROUND

Low-value use of laboratory tests is a global challenge. Our objective was to evaluate an intervention bundle to reduce repetitive use of routine laboratory testing in hospitalised patients.

METHODS

We used a stepped-wedge design to implement an intervention bundle across eight medical units. Our intervention included educational tools and social comparison reports followed by peer-facilitated report discussion sessions. The study spanned October 2020-June 2021, divided into control, feasibility testing, intervention and a follow-up period. The primary outcomes were the number and costs of routine laboratory tests ordered per patient-day. We used generalised linear mixed models, and analyses were by intention to treat.

RESULTS

We included a total of 125 854 patient-days. Patient groups were similar in age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and length of stay during the control, intervention and follow-up periods. From the control to the follow-up period, there was a 14% (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92) overall reduction in ordering of routine tests with the intervention, along with a 14% (β coefficient=-0.14, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.21) reduction in costs of routine testing. This amounted to a total cost savings of $C1.15 per patient-day. There was also a 15% (IRR=0.85, 95% CI 0.79, 0.92) reduction in ordering of all common tests with the intervention and a 20% (IRR=1.20, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.30) increase in routine test-free patient-days. No worsening was noted in patient safety endpoints with the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted intervention bundle using education and facilitated multilevel social comparison was associated with a safe and effective reduction in use of routine daily laboratory testing in hospitals. Further research is needed to understand how system-level interventions may increase this effect and which intervention elements are necessary to sustain results.

Characterizing the Gaps Between Best-Practice Implementation Strategies and Real-world Implementation: Qualitative Study Among Family Physicians Who Engaged With Audit and Feedback Reports

BACKGROUND

In Ontario, Canada, a government agency known as Ontario Health is responsible for making audit and feedback reports available to all family physicians to encourage ongoing quality improvement. The confidential report provides summary data on 3 key areas of practice: safe prescription, cancer screening, and diabetes management.

OBJECTIVE

This report was redesigned to improve its usability in line with evidence. The objective of this study was to explore how the redesign was perceived, with an emphasis on recipients' understanding of the report and their engagement with it.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with family physicians who had experience with both versions of the report recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. We analyzed the transcripts following an emergent and iterative approach.

RESULTS

Saturation was reached after 17 family physicians participated. In total, 2 key themes emerged as factors that affected the perceived usability of the report: alignment between the report and the recipients' expectations and capacity to engage in quality improvement. Family physicians expected the report and its quality indicators to reflect best practices and to be valid and accurate. They also expected the report to offer feedback on the clinical activities they perceived to be within their control to change. Furthermore, family physicians expected the goal of the report to be aligned with their perspective on feasible quality improvement activities. Most of these expectations were not met, limiting the perceived usability of the report. The capacity to engage with audit and feedback was hindered by several organizational and physician-level barriers, including the lack of fit with the existing workflow, competing priorities, time constraints, and insufficient skills for bridging the gaps between their data and the corresponding desired actions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recognized improvements in the design of the report to better align with best practices, it was not perceived as highly usable. Improvements in the presentation of the data could not overcome misalignment with family physicians' expectations or the limited capacity to engage with the report. Integrating iterative evaluations informed by user-centered design can complement evidence-based guidance for implementation strategies. Creating a space for bringing together audit and feedback designers and recipients may help improve usability and effectiveness.

A descriptive study of routine laboratory testing in intensive care unit in nearly 140,000 patient stays

To describe the relationship between the use of laboratory tests and changes in laboratory parameters in ICU patients is necessary to help optimize routine laboratory testing. A retrospective, descriptive study was conducted on the large eICU-Collaborative Research Database. The relationship between the use of routine laboratory tests (chemistry and blood counts) and changes in ten common laboratory parameters was studied. Factors associated with laboratory tests were identified in a multivariate regression analysis using generalized estimating equation Poisson models. The study included 138,734 patient stays, with an ICU mortality of 8.97%. For all parameters, the proportion of patients with at least one test decreased from day 0 to day 1 and then gradually increased until the end of the ICU stay. Paradoxically, the results of almost all tests moved toward normal values, and the daily variation in the results of almost all tests decreased over time. The presence of an arterial catheter or teaching hospitals were independently associated with an increase in the number of laboratory tests performed. The paradox of routine laboratory testing should be further explored by assessing the factors that drive the decision to perform routine laboratory testing in ICU and the impact of such testing on patient.

Daily weekday audit and feedback to clinicians for an inpatient intervention in obstetrics: is there sustained impact over the weekend? A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study

Background

Audit and feedback as an implementation strategy leads to small, but potentially important improvements in practice. Yet, audit and feedback is time and personnel intensive. Many interventions designed for inpatient care are meant to be utilized by care teams all days of the week, including weekends when research staff are at a minimum. We aimed to determine if audit and feedback regarding use of an evidence-based inpatient obstetric intervention performed only on weekdays could have a sustained impact over the weekend.

Methods

This study was performed as a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study examining the impact of implementation of a validated calculator that predicts the likelihood of cesarean delivery during labor induction. During the 1 year postimplementation period, Monday through Friday, a member of the study team contacted clinicians daily to provide verbal feedback. While the same clinician pool worked weekend shifts, audit and feedback did not occur on Saturdays or Sundays. The primary outcome was intervention use, defined as documentation of counseling around the cesarean risk calculator result, in the electronic health record. Intervention use was compared between those with (weekdays) and without (weekends) audit and feedback.

Results

Of the 822 women meeting eligibility criteria during the postimplementation period (July 1, 2018–June 30, 2019), 651 (79.2%) were admitted on weekdays when audit and feedback was occurring and 171 (20.8%) on weekends without audit and feedback. The use of the cesarean risk calculator was recorded in 676 of 822 (82.2%) of eligible patient charts. There was no significant difference in cesarean risk calculator use overall by days when audit and feedback occurred versus days without audit and feedback (weekday admissions 82.0% vs. weekend admissions 83.0%, aOR 0.90 95% CI [0.57–1.40], p = 0.76). There was no significant trend in the relationship between calculator use and weekday versus weekend admission by month across the study period (p = 0.21).

Conclusions

Daily weekday audit and feedback for implementation of an evidence-based inpatient obstetric intervention had sustained impact over the weekends. This finding may have implications for both research staffing, as well as sustainability efforts. Further research should determine the lowest effective frequency of audit and feedback to produce implementation success.

How well do critical care audit and feedback interventions adhere to best practice? Development and application of the REFLECT-52 evaluation tool

BACKGROUND

Healthcare Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions have been shown to be an effective means of changing healthcare professional behavior, but work is required to optimize them, as evidence suggests that A&F interventions are not improving over time. Recent published guidance has suggested an initial set of best practices that may help to increase intervention effectiveness, which focus on the "Nature of the desired action," "Nature of the data available for feedback," "Feedback display," and "Delivering the feedback intervention." We aimed to develop a generalizable evaluation tool that can be used to assess whether A&F interventions conform to these suggestions for best practice and conducted initial testing of the tool through application to a sample of critical care A&F interventions.

METHODS

We used a consensus-based approach to develop an evaluation tool from published guidance and subsequently applied the tool to conduct a secondary analysis of A&F interventions. To start, the 15 suggestions for improved feedback interventions published by Brehaut et al. were deconstructed into rateable items. Items were developed through iterative consensus meetings among researchers. These items were then piloted on 12 A&F studies (two reviewers met for consensus each time after independently applying the tool to four A&F intervention studies). After each consensus meeting, items were modified to improve clarity and specificity, and to help increase the reliability between coders. We then assessed the conformity to best practices of 17 critical care A&F interventions, sourced from a systematic review of A&F interventions on provider ordering of laboratory tests and transfusions in the critical care setting. Data for each criteria item was extracted by one coder and confirmed by a second; results were then aggregated and presented graphically or in a table and described narratively.

RESULTS

In total, 52 criteria items were developed (38 ratable items and 14 descriptive items). Eight studies targeted lab test ordering behaviors, and 10 studies targeted blood transfusion ordering. Items focused on specifying the "Nature of the Desired Action" were adhered to most commonly-feedback was often presented in the context of an external priority (13/17), showed or described a discrepancy in performance (14/17), and in all cases it was reasonable for the recipients to be responsible for the change in behavior (17/17). Items focused on the "Nature of the Data Available for Feedback" were adhered to less often-only some interventions provided individual (5/17) or patient-level data (5/17), and few included aspirational comparators (2/17), or justifications for specificity of feedback (4/17), choice of comparator (0/9) or the interval between reports (3/13). Items focused on the "Nature of the Feedback Display" were reported poorly-just under half of interventions reported providing feedback in more than one way (8/17) and interventions rarely included pilot-testing of the feedback (1/17 unclear) or presentation of a visual display and summary message in close proximity of each other (1/13). Items focused on "Delivering the Feedback Intervention" were also poorly reported-feedback rarely reported use of barrier/enabler assessments (0/17), involved target members in the development of the feedback (0/17), or involved explicit design to be received and discussed in a social context (3/17); however, most interventions clearly indicated who was providing the feedback (11/17), involved a facilitator (8/12) or involved engaging in self-assessment around the target behavior prior to receipt of feedback (12/17).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the theory-informed best practice items were not consistently applied in critical care and can suggest clear ways to improve interventions. Standardized reporting of detailed intervention descriptions and feedback templates may also help to further advance research in this field. The 52-item tool can serve as a basis for reliably assessing concordance with best practice guidance in existing A&F interventions trialed in other healthcare settings, and could be used to inform future A&F intervention development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

[Laboratory testing in intensive care medicine]

Despite the tremendous technological developments in medicine, careful history-taking and clinical examination remain the cornerstones of diagnostics. Numerous laboratory tests are ordered in intensive care and emergency medicine. The rate of overutilization of these tests during initial patient admission is almost 50%. Patient history may be frequently insufficient for conducting targeted laboratory testing, and concern about not overlooking a pathology also contributes to laboratory test overutilization. On the other hand, laboratory test profiles are frequently defined a priori to simplify the management process. However, these profiles are commonly based on symptoms rather than on a suspected diagnosis. Several laboratory variables are outside the normal range in critically ill patients. However, normal ranges are defined on the basis of data from healthy subjects, and these do not allow for a clear distinction between stress adaptation and clinically relevant changes that require correction. Pathophysiological changes due to the acute injury in critically ill patients and the reaction of the organism to the injury or even to the treatment itself can lead to changes in laboratory values. Untargeted laboratory tests contribute to iatrogenic anemia and increased costs. The results of such tests are either hardly noticed or, in the worst case, lead to further unnecessary diagnostic steps and unjustified therapeutic measures. Point-of-care laboratory tests, including blood gas analysis, blood count, serum electrolytes, and lactate, to assess the patient's homeostatic state and laboratory data for the relevant critical care scores are uniformly required. Beyond that, every laboratory test should be chosen wisely based on a concrete clinical question.