'We're like Spider-Man; with great power comes great responsibility': Coaches' experiences supporting struggling medical students

BACKGROUND

Medical students can experience a range of academic and non-academic struggles. Coaching is a valuable strategy to support learners, but coaches describe working with struggling learners as taxing. Transformative learning theory (TLT) provides insights into how educators grow from challenging experiences to build resilience. This study explores how coaches evolve as educators through supporting struggling students.

METHODS

This qualitative study grounded in an interpretivist paradigm used interviews of longitudinal medical student coaches at two academic institutions. Interviews, using TLT as a sensitizing concept, explored coaches' experience coaching struggling learners. We performed thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 15 coaches. Coaches described supporting students through multi-faceted struggles which often surprised the coach. Three themes characterized coaches' experiences: personal responsibility, emotional response, and personal learning. Coaches shouldered high personal responsibility for learners' success. For some, this burden felt emotional, raised parental instincts and questions about maintaining boundaries with learners. Coaches evolved their coaching approach, challenged biases, and built skills. Coaches learned to better appreciate the learner point of view and employ resources to support students.

DISCUSSION

Through navigating learner struggles, educators can gain self-efficacy, learn to understand learners' perspectives, and evolve their coaching approach to lessen their personal emotional burden through time.

Influence of a Large Language Model on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Vignette Study

Importance

Diagnostic errors are common and cause significant morbidity. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in their performance on both multiple-choice and open-ended medical reasoning examinations, but it remains unknown whether the use of such tools improves diagnostic reasoning.

Objective

To assess the impact of the GPT-4 LLM on physicians' diagnostic reasoning compared to conventional resources.

Design

Multi-center, randomized clinical vignette study.

Setting

The study was conducted using remote video conferencing with physicians across the country and in-person participation across multiple academic medical institutions.

Participants

Resident and attending physicians with training in family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to access GPT-4 in addition to conventional diagnostic resources or to just conventional resources. They were allocated 60 minutes to review up to six clinical vignettes adapted from established diagnostic reasoning exams.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was diagnostic performance based on differential diagnosis accuracy, appropriateness of supporting and opposing factors, and next diagnostic evaluation steps. Secondary outcomes included time spent per case and final diagnosis.

Results

50 physicians (26 attendings, 24 residents) participated, with an average of 5.2 cases completed per participant. The median diagnostic reasoning score per case was 76.3 percent (IQR 65.8 to 86.8) for the GPT-4 group and 73.7 percent (IQR 63.2 to 84.2) for the conventional resources group, with an adjusted difference of 1.6 percentage points (95% CI -4.4 to 7.6; p=0.60). The median time spent on cases for the GPT-4 group was 519 seconds (IQR 371 to 668 seconds), compared to 565 seconds (IQR 456 to 788 seconds) for the conventional resources group, with a time difference of -82 seconds (95% CI -195 to 31; p=0.20). GPT-4 alone scored 15.5 percentage points (95% CI 1.5 to 29, p=0.03) higher than the conventional resources group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In a clinical vignette-based study, the availability of GPT-4 to physicians as a diagnostic aid did not significantly improve clinical reasoning compared to conventional resources, although it may improve components of clinical reasoning such as efficiency. GPT-4 alone demonstrated higher performance than both physician groups, suggesting opportunities for further improvement in physician-AI collaboration in clinical practice.

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of tarsal tunnel syndrome caused by an intraneural ganglion cyst

OBJECTIVES

Intraneural ganglionic cysts are non-neoplastic cysts that can cause signs and symptoms of peripheral neuropathy. However, the scarcity of such cases can lead to cognitive biases. Early surgical exploration of space occupying lesions plays an important role in identification and improving the outcomes for intraneural ganglionic cysts.

CASE PRESENTATION

This patient presented with loss of sensation on the right sole with tingling numbness for six months. A diagnosis of tarsal tunnel syndrome was made. Nerve conduction study revealed that the mixed nerve action potential (NAP) was absent in the right medial and lateral plantar nerves. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) found a cystic lesion measuring 1.4×1.8×3.8 cm as the presumed cause of the neuropathy. Surgical exploration revealed a ganglionic cyst traversing towards the flexor retinaculum with baby cysts. The latter finding came as a surprise to the treating surgeon and was confirmed to be an intraneural ganglionic cyst based on the histopathology report.

CONCLUSIONS

Through integrated commentary by a case discussant and reflection by an orthopedician, this case highlights the significance of the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and anchoring bias in a case of rare disease. Despite diagnostic delays, a medically knowledgeable patient's involvement in their own care lead to a more positive outcome. A fish-bone diagram is provided to visually demonstrate the major factors that contributed to the diagnostic delay. Finally, this case provides clinical teaching points in addition to a pitfall, myth, and pearl related to availability heuristic and the sunk cost fallacy.

Development and Validation of a Formative Assessment Tool for Nephrology Fellows' Clinical Reasoning

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors are commonly driven by failures in clinical reasoning. Deficits in clinical reasoning are common among graduate medical learners, including nephrology fellows. We created and validated an instrument to assess clinical reasoning in a national cohort of nephrology fellows and established performance thresholds for remedial coaching.

METHODS

Experts in nephrology education and clinical reasoning remediation designed an instrument to measure clinical reasoning through a written patient encounter note from a web-based, simulated AKI consult. The instrument measured clinical reasoning in three domains: problem representation, differential diagnosis with justification, and diagnostic plan with justification. Inter-rater reliability was established in a pilot cohort ( n =7 raters) of first-year nephrology fellows using a two-way random effects agreement intraclass correlation coefficient model. The instrument was then administered to a larger cohort of first-year fellows to establish performance standards for coaching using the Hofstee method ( n =6 raters).

RESULTS

In the pilot cohort, there were 15 fellows from four training program, and in the study cohort, there were 61 fellows from 20 training programs. The intraclass correlation coefficients for problem representation, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic plan were 0.90, 0.70, and 0.50, respectively. Passing thresholds (% total points) in problem representation, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic plan were 59%, 57%, and 62%, respectively. Fifty-nine percent ( n =36) met the threshold for remedial coaching in at least one domain.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide validity evidence for a simulated AKI consult for formative assessment of clinical reasoning in nephrology fellows. Most fellows met criteria for coaching in at least one of three reasoning domains, demonstrating a need for learner assessment and instruction in clinical reasoning.

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of crushing, substernal chest pain

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic error is not uncommon and diagnostic accuracy can be improved with the use of problem representation, pre-test probability, and Bayesian analysis for improved clinical reasoning.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 48-year-old female presented as a transfer from another Emergency Department (ED) to our ED with crushing, substernal pain associated with dyspnea, diaphoresis, nausea, and a tingling sensation down both arms with radiation to the back and neck. Troponins were elevated along with an abnormal electrocardiogram. A negative myocardial perfusion scan led to the patient's discharge. The patient presented to the ED 10 days later with an anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

An overemphasis on a single testing modality led to diagnostic error and a severe event. The use of pre-test probabilities guided by history-taking can lead to improved interpretation of test results, ultimately improving diagnostic accuracy and preventing serious medical errors.

Framework and Schema are False Synonyms: Defining Terms to Improve Learning

Clinical reasoning is an essential expertise of health care professionals that includes the complex cognitive processes that lead to diagnosis and management decisions. In order to optimally teach, learn, and assess clinical reasoning, it is imperative for teachers and learners to have a shared understanding of the language. Currently, educators use the terms schema and framework interchangeably but they are distinct concepts. In this paper, we offer definitions for schema and framework and use the high-stakes field of aviation to demonstrate the interplay of these concepts. We offer examples of framework and schema in the medical education field and discuss how a clear understanding of these concepts allows for greater intentionality when teaching and assessing clinical reasoning.

A novel virtual course to teach medical students high-value decision-making

BACKGROUND

Although a clinician's ability to employ high-value decision-making is influenced by training, many undergraduate medical education programmes lack a formal curriculum in high-value, cost-conscious care. We present a curriculum developed through a cross-institutional collaboration that was used to teach students at two institutions about this topic and can serve as a framework for other institutions to develop similar curricula.

APPROACH

The faculty from the University of Virginia and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine created a 2-week-long online course to teach medical students the fundamentals of high-value care. The course consisted of learning modules, clinical cases, textbook studies, journal clubs and a competitive 'Shark Tank' final project where students proposed a realistic intervention to promote high-value clinical care.

EVALUATION

Over two-thirds of students rated the course's quality as excellent or very good. Most found the online modules (92%), assigned textbook readings (89%) and 'Shark Tank' competition (83%) useful. To evaluate the student's ability to apply the concepts learned during the course in clinical contexts, we developed a scoring rubric based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model to evaluate students' proposals. Groups chosen as finalists (as determined by faculty judges) were more likely to be fourth-year students (56%), achieved higher overall scores (p = 0.03), better incorporated cost impact at several levels (patient, hospital and national) (p = 0.001) and discussed both positive and negative impacts on patient safety (p = 0.04).

IMPLICATIONS

This course provides a framework for medical schools to use in their teaching of high-value care. Cross-institutional collaboration and online content overcame local barriers such as contextual factors and lack of faculty expertise, allowed for greater flexibility, and enabled focused curricular time to be spent on a capstone project competition. Prior clinical experience amongst medical students may be an enabling factor in promoting application of learning related to high-value care.

The future of teaching management reasoning: important questions and potential solutions

Management reasoning is distinct from but inextricably linked to diagnostic reasoning in the iterative process that is clinical reasoning. Complex and situated, management reasoning skills are distinct from diagnostic reasoning skills and must be developed in order to promote cogent clinical decisions. While there is growing interest in teaching management reasoning, key educational questions remain regarding when it should be taught, how it can best be taught in the clinical setting, and how it can be taught in a way that helps mitigate implicit bias. Here, we describe several useful tools to structure teaching of management reasoning across learner levels and educational settings. The management script provides a scaffold for organizing knowledge around management and can serve as a springboard for discussion of uncertainty, thresholds, high-value care, and shared decision-making. The management pause reserves space for management discussions and exploration of a learner's reasoning. Finally, the equity reflection invites learners to examine management decisions from a health equity perspective, promoting the practice of metacognition around implicit bias. These tools are easily deployable, and - when used regularly - foster a learning environment primed for the successful teaching of management reasoning.

REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool

INTRODUCTION

Clinical reasoning encompasses the process of data collection, synthesis, and interpretation to generate a working diagnosis and make management decisions. Situated cognition theory suggests that knowledge is relative to contextual factors, and clinical reasoning in urgent situations is framed by pressure of consequential, time-sensitive decision-making for diagnosis and management. These unique aspects of urgent clinical care may limit the effectiveness of traditional tools to assess, teach, and remediate clinical reasoning.

METHODS

Using two validated frameworks, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians trained to remediate clinical reasoning and with experience in urgent clinical care encounters designed the novel Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool (REACT). REACT is a behaviorally anchored assessment tool scoring five domains used to provide formative feedback to learners evaluating patients during urgent clinical situations. A pilot study was performed to assess fourth-year medical students during simulated urgent clinical scenarios. Learners were scored using REACT by a separate, multidisciplinary group of clinician educators with no additional training in the clinical reasoning process. REACT scores were analyzed for internal consistency across raters and observations.

RESULTS

Overall internal consistency for the 41 patient simulations as measured by Cronbach's alpha was 0.86. A weighted kappa statistic was used to assess the overall score inter-rater reliability. Moderate reliability was observed at 0.56.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, REACT is the first tool designed specifically for formative assessment of a learner's clinical reasoning performance during simulated urgent clinical situations. With evidence of reliability and content validity, this tool guides feedback to learners during high-risk urgent clinical scenarios, with the goal of reducing diagnostic and management errors to limit patient harm.

The Diagnostic Medical Interview

The diagnostic medical interview spans from the chief concern to the formation of a differential diagnosis. The patient's unique expression of their symptoms is the central component of this conversation. The interview should begin by eliciting the patient's chief concern with an open-ended question and then move through 3 nonlinear phases: open-ended elicitation, guided elicitation, and hypothesis-driven elicitation. Performing a comprehensive medical interview by obtaining background health information and the review of systems can help to expand or shrink the differential diagnosis. Clinicians should obtain information about specific symptoms and background information with a significant likelihood to narrow the differential diagnosis.

Characterization of Clinical Skills Remediation: A National Survey of Medical Schools

OBJECTIVES

Clinical skills instruction is a standard part of medical school curricula, but how institutions address learners who struggle in this area is less clear. Although recommendations for the remediation of clinical skills at an institutional level have been published, how these recommendations are being implemented on a national scale is unknown. In this descriptive study, we characterize current clinical skills remediation practices at US medical schools and US-accredited Caribbean medical schools.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of medical educators who work with struggling students. From March 24, 2020 to April 9, 2020, the Directors of Clinical Skills Remediation Working Group conducted an e-mail survey incorporating four aspects of remediation program design and function: identification, assessment, active remediation, and ongoing evaluation.

RESULTS

In total, 92 individuals representing 45 institutions provided descriptive information about their respective remediation programs. The majority of respondents have a formal process of identifying (75%) and assessing (86%) students who are identified as struggling with clinical skills, but lack a standardized method of categorizing deficits. Fewer institutions have a standardized approach to active remediation and ongoing evaluation of struggling learners. Fifty-two percent of institutions provide training to faculty involved in the remediation process.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most institutions are able to identify struggling students, they lack a standardized approach to intervene. Remediation effectiveness is limited by a lack of student buy-in and institutional time, expertise, and resources. These findings highlight the need for more formalized structure and standardization in remediation program design and implementation.

Lessons in clinical reasoning ‒ pitfalls, myths and pearls: a case of recurrent pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Cognitive biases can result in clinical reasoning failures that can lead to diagnostic errors. Autobrewery syndrome is a rare, but likely underdiagnosed, condition in which gut flora ferment glucose, producing ethanol. It most frequently presents with unexplained episodes of inebriation, though more case studies are necessary to better characterize the syndrome.

CASE PRESENTATION

This is a case of a 41-year old male with a past medical history notable only for frequent sinus infections, who presented with recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis. In the week prior to his first episode of pancreatitis, he consumed four beers, an increase from his baseline of 1-2 drinks per month. At home, he had several episodes of confusion, which he attributed to fatigue. He underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and testing for genetic and autoimmune causes of pancreatitis, which were non-revealing. He was hospitalized 10 more times during that 9-month period for acute pancreatitis with elevated transaminases. During these admissions, he had elevated triglycerides requiring an insulin drip and elevated alcohol level despite abstaining from alcohol for the prior eight months. His alcohol level increased after consumption of complex carbohydrates, confirming the diagnosis of autobrewery syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Through integrated commentary on the diagnostic reasoning process, this case underscores how overconfidence can lead to premature closure and anchoring resulting in diagnostic error. Using a metacognitive overview, case discussants describe the importance of structured reflection and a standardized approach to early hypothesis generation to navigate these cognitive biases.

A High-Value Care Curriculum Using Individual and Group Structured Reflection

OBJECTIVE

One-third of all healthcare dollars are wasted, primarily in the form of clinician-ordered unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments. Medical education has likely played a central role in the creation and perpetuation of this problem. We aimed to create a curriculum for medical students to promote their contribution to high-value care conversations in the clinical environment.

METHODS

At a large university medical center between March 2017 and February 2018, we implemented a 3-phase curriculum combining multimodal educational initiatives with individual and group reflection for third-year medical students during their 12-week long Internal Medicine clerkship rotation. Students were asked to identify examples of clinical decision making that lacked attention to high-value care, propose solutions to the identified situation, and pinpoint barriers to the implementation of effective solutions using a structured reflection framework and then participate in a debrief debate with fellow students. To assess the curriculum, reflective narratives were coded by frequency and codes were compared with one another and with relevant high-value care literature to identify patterns and themes.

RESULTS

In total, 151 medical students participated in phase 1 and 119 in phase 3. For phase 2, 126 reflective narratives (94.7% participation rate) comprised 226 problems, 280 solutions, and 179 barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

When provided appropriate resources, medical students are able to identify relevant examples of low-value care, downstream solutions, and barriers to implementation through a structured reflection curriculum comprising written narratives and in-person debate.

Lessons in clinical reasoning ‒ pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of confusion, disequilibrium, and "picking at the air"

OBJECTIVES

Defects in human cognition commonly result in clinical reasoning failures that can lead to diagnostic errors.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 43-year-old female was brought to the emergency department with 4-5 days of confusion, disequilibrium resulting in several falls, and hallucinations. Further investigation revealed tachycardia, diaphoresis, mydriatic pupils, incomprehensible speech and she was seen picking at the air. Given multiple recent medication changes, there was initial concern for serotonin syndrome vs. an anticholinergic toxidrome. She then developed a fever, marked leukocytosis, and worsening encephalopathy. She underwent lumbar puncture and aspiration of an identified left ankle effusion. Methicillin sensitive staph aureus (MSSA) grew from blood, joint, and cerebrospinal fluid cultures within 18 h. She improved with antibiotics and incision, drainage, and washout of her ankle by orthopedic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Through integrated commentary on the diagnostic reasoning process from clinical reasoning experts, this case underscores how multiple cognitive biases can cascade sequentially, skewing clinical reasoning toward erroneous conclusions and driving potentially inappropriate testing and treatment. A fishbone diagram is provided to visually demonstrate the major factors that contributed to the diagnostic error. A case discussant describes the importance of structured reflection, a tool to promote metacognitive analysis, and the application of knowledge organization tools such as illness scripts to navigate these cognitive biases.

You can have both: Coaching to promote clinical competency and professional identity formation

Coaching is a critical tool to guide student development of clinical competency and formation of professional identity in medicine, two inextricably linked concepts. Because progress toward clinical competence is linked to thinking, acting and feeling like a physician, a coach's knowledge about a learner's development of clinical skills is essential to promoting the learner's professional identity formation. A longitudinal coaching program provides a foundation for the formation of coach-learner relationships built on trust. Trusting relationships can moderate the risk and vulnerability inherent in a hierarchical medical education system and allow coaching conversations to focus on the promotion of self-regulated learning and fostering skills for life-long learning. Herein, we describe a comprehensive, longitudinal clinical coaching program for medical students designed to support learners' professional identify formation and effectively promote their emerging competence.

Clinical Ordering Practices of the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test at a Large Academic Medical Center

Background

The novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) originated in December 2019 and has now infected almost 5 million people in the United States. In the spring of 2020, private laboratories and some hospitals began antibody testing despite limited evidence-based guidance.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from May 14, 2020, to June 15, 2020, at a large academic medical center, 1 of the first in the United States to provide antibody testing capability to individual clinicians in order to identify clinician-described indications for antibody testing compared with current expert-based guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Results

Of 444 individual antibody test results, the 2 most commonly described testing indications, apart from public health epidemiology studies (n = 223), were for patients with a now resolved COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 105) with no previous molecular testing and for asymptomatic patients believed to have had a past exposure to a person with COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 60). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing among those indications consistent with current IDSA and CDC guidance was 17% compared with 5% (P < .0001) among those indications inconsistent with such guidance. Testing inconsistent with current expert-based guidance accounted for almost half of testing costs.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate a dissociation between clinician-described indications for testing and expert-based guidance and a significantly different rate of positive testing between these 2 groups. Clinical curiosity and patient preference appear to have played a significant role in testing decisions and substantially contributed to testing costs.

The Management Script: A Practical Tool for Teaching Management Reasoning

Management reasoning, a component of clinical reasoning, has become an important area for medical education research given its inherent complexity, role in medical decision making, and association with high-value care. Teaching management reasoning requires characterizing its core concepts and identifying strategies to teach them. In this Perspective, the authors propose the term "management script" to describe the mental schema that clinicians develop and use in medical decision making. Management scripts are high-level, precompiled, conceptual knowledge structures of the courses of action that a clinician may undertake to address a patient's health care problem(s). Like illness scripts, management scripts have foundational elements that are shared by most clinicians but are ultimately idiosyncratic based on each clinician's unique history of learning and experience. Applying management scripts includes 2 steps-(1) management script activation and (2) management option selection-which can occur reflexively (unconsciously) or deliberately (consciously), similar to, respectively, the System 1 thinking and System 2 thinking of dual process theory. Management scripts can be taught for different conditions by using management script templates, educational scaffolds that provide possible courses of action to address a health care problem at any stage. Just as learners use system-based or organ-based frameworks to generate a differential diagnosis, students can use a generic management script template early in training to develop management scripts for specific problems. Future research directions include exploring the role of management scripts in medical education and quality improvement practices.

A Case for Abandoning Inpatient Fecal Occult Blood Testing

Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is currently Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved only for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. There is now widespread off-label use of FOBT in the hospital setting as a diagnostic test. Here we present a brief case and a more detailed review of the literature arguing against inpatient FOBT. Inpatient use of FOBT is problematic for several reasons including failure to account for false positives or negatives, delays in appropriate consultations or endoscopy, increased costs, increase length of stays, unnecessary procedures, and test results that do not change management. Inappropriate use of FOBT can lead to both overuse and underuse of endoscopy. Many retrospective audit studies and more recently a meta-analysis have shown that FOBTs have poor test performance and are unable rule out the need for endoscopy in patients with iron deficiency anemia. For these reasons we argue that inpatient FOBT should be abandoned. 

Lessons in clinical reasoning – pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of chest pain and shortness of breath

Background

Defects in human cognition commonly result in clinical reasoning failures that can lead to diagnostic errors. A metacognitive structured reflection on what clinical findings fit and/or do not fit with likely and “can’t miss” diagnoses may reduce such errors.

Case presentation

A 57-year-old man was sent to the emergency department from clinic with chest pain, severe shortness of breath, weakness, and cold sweats. Further investigation revealed multiple risk factors for coronary artery disease, sudden onset of exertional dyspnea, and chest pain that incompletely resolved with rest, mild tachycardia and hypoxia, an abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG), elevated serum cardiac biomarkers, and elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in the absence of left-sided heart failure. He was treated for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), discharged, and quickly returned with worsening symptoms that eventually led to a diagnosis of submassive pulmonary embolism (PE).

Conclusions

Through integrated commentary on the diagnostic reasoning process from clinical reasoning experts at two institutions, this case underscores the importance of frequent assessment of fit along with explicit explanation of dissonant features in order to avoid premature closure and diagnostic error. A fishbone diagram is provided to visually demonstrate the major factors that contributed to the diagnostic error. A case discussant describes the importance of diagnostic schema as an analytic reasoning strategy to assist in the creation of a differential diagnosis, problem representation to summarize updated findings, a Popperian analytic approach of attempting to falsify less-likely hypotheses, and matching pertinent positives and negatives to previously learned illness scripts. Finally, this case provides clinical teaching points in addition to a pitfall, myth, and pearl specific to premature closure.

Evidence-Based Guidelines to Eliminate Repetitive Laboratory Testing

Routine daily laboratory testing of hospitalized patients reflects a wasteful clinical practice that threatens the value of health care. Choosing Wisely initiatives from numerous professional societies have identified repetitive laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability as low value care. Although laboratory expenditure often represents less than 5% of most hospital budgets, the impact is far-reaching given that laboratory tests influence nearly 60% to 70% of all medical decisions. Excessive phlebotomy can lead to hospital-acquired anemia, increased costs, and unnecessary downstream testing and procedures. Efforts to reduce the frequency of laboratory orders can improve patient satisfaction and reduce cost without negatively affecting patient outcomes. To date, numerous interventions have been deployed across multiple institutions without a standardized approach. Health care professionals and administrative leaders should carefully strategize and optimize efforts to reduce daily laboratory testing. This review presents an evidence-based implementation blueprint to guide teams aimed at improving appropriate routine laboratory testing among hospitalized patients.