ReviewApplied clinical informatics2022
Dig Deeper: A Case Report of Finding (and Fixing) the Root Cause of Add-On Laboratory Failures.
Review in Applied clinical informatics, 2022. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenipunctures and the testing they facilitate are clinically necessary, particularly for hospitalized patients. However, excess venipunctures lead to patient harm, decreased patient satisfaction, and waste.
objectivesWe sought to identify contributors to excess venipunctures at our institution, focusing on electronic health record (EHR)-related factors. We then implemented and evaluated the impact of an intervention targeting one of the contributing factors.
methodsWe employed the quality improvement (QI) methodology to find sources of excess venipunctures, specifically targeting add-on failures. Once an error was identified, we deployed an EHR-based intervention which was evaluated with retrospective pre- and postintervention analysis.
resultsWe identified an error in how the EHR evaluated the ability of laboratories across a health system to perform add-on tests to existing blood specimens. A review of 195,263 add-on orders placed prior to the intervention showed that 165,118 were successful and 30,145 failed, a failure rate of 15.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.1-15.6). We implemented an EHR-based modification that changed the criteria for add-on testing from a health-system-wide query of laboratory capabilities to one that incorporated only the capabilities of laboratories with feasible access to existing patient samples. In the 6 months following the intervention, a review of 87,333 add-on orders showed that 77,310 were successful, and 10,023 add-on orders failed resulting in a postintervention failure rate of 11.4% (95% CI: 11.1, 11.8) (
conclusionEHR features such as the ability to identify possible add-on tests are designed to reduce venipunctures but may produce unforeseen negative effects on downstream processes, particularly as hospitals merge into health systems using a single EHR. This case report describes the successful identification and correction of one cause of add-on laboratory failures. QI methodology can yield important insights that reveal simple interventions for improvement.
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.