ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2024
Impact of customized electronic duplicate order alerts on microbiology test ordering: Financial and environmental cost savings.
Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate cost savings after implementation of customized electronic duplicate order alerts.
designAlerts were implemented for microbiology tests at the largest public hospital in Victoria, Australia. These alerts were designed to pop up at the point of test ordering to inform the clinician that the test had previously been ordered and to suggest appropriate reordering time frames and indications.
resultsIn a 6-month audit of urine culture (our most commonly ordered test) after alert implementation, 2,904 duplicate requesters proceeded with the request and 2,549 tests were cancelled, for a 47% reduction in test ordering. For fecal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), our second most common test, there was a 54% reduction in test ordering. For our most commonly ordered expensive test, hepatitis C PCR, there was a 42% reduction in test ordering: 25 tests were cancelled.Cancelled tests resulted in estimated savings of AU$52,382 (US$33,960) for urine culture, AU$34,914 (US$22,442) for fecal PCR, AU$4,506 (US$2,896) for hepatitis C PCR. For cancelled hepatitis B PCR and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) serology, the cost savings was AU$8,472 (US$5445). The estimated financial cost saving in direct hospital costs for these 6 assays was AU$100,274 (US$67,925) over the 6-month period. Environmental waste cost saving by weight was estimated to be 280 kg. Greenhouse gas footprint, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for cancelled EBV and CMV serology tests, resulted in a saving of at least 17,711 g, equivalent to driving 115 km in a standard car.
conclusionCustomized alerts issued at the time of test ordering can have enormous impacts on reducing cost, waste, and unnecessary testing.
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.