ArticleBiochemia medica2013
Policy change to improve pathology turnaround time and reduce costs--possible to do both?
Article in Biochemia medica, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOvercrowding and prolonged length of stay in emergency departments (ED) are increasing problems in hospitals. Rapid availability of all laboratory results has an impact on clinical decision-making, admissions or discharge decisions and resource utilisation. Increasing number of our urinary drugs of abuse (DOA) screens had a turnaround time (TAT) of up to 33 days after the discharge of the patient. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing an audit and a consultation period with clinicians using the service, a policy change was implemented to reduce the use of gas chromatography mass spectroscopy (GCMS): all requests would have a standard immunoassay (IA) test panel undertaken unless specifically they requested GCMS (including medico-legal) analysis.
resultsAlmost all of the clinicians interviewed had no understanding of the DOA screening or the difference in the information generated between a confirmatory GCMS urine toxicology screen and IA DOA panel. It appeared none of the patients surveyed in the audit would have had a different clinical decision made if a GCMS had not been undertaken. Post change audit showed only 4.3% of drug requests for IA also received a confirmatory GCMS testing. The estimated saving post change implementation was $127,000 (AU $) in test costs alone over a two year period. The TAT of GCMS results was reduced to 3-4 days.
conclusionA laboratory-led behavioural change in test requesting is possible and sustainable provided the reason is clinically sound and accompanied by consultation and availability of advice by phone when requested on test requesting or interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.