ArticleBMJ open quality2026
De-implementation of routine laboratory testing in a surgical intensive care unit: lessons from a two-phase quality improvement initiative.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. 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
Excessive laboratory investigations in the intensive care units (ICUs) contribute to increased risk of line infections, iatrogenic anaemia, environmental burden and healthcare costs without clear mortality benefit. Despite Choosing Wisely recommendations advocating clinically indicated testing, overutilisation of laboratory tests in ICUs remains common. In our surgical ICU, ordering practices were driven by unclear consultant expectations, reassurance-seeking, junior doctor inexperience, ease conferred by order sets and limited awareness of value-based care.We conducted a two-phase quality improvement initiative between December 2023 and December 2025 to reduce laboratory utilisation. Root causes were identified via clinician surveys, visualised using an Ishikawa diagram and prioritised using Pareto charting. The primary outcome was the number of laboratory investigations ordered per patient-day. Counterbalance metrics included ICU mortality and length of stay (LOS).Interventions were mapped to a driver diagram. Phase 1 focused on education, visual reminders, encouraging shared decision-making, nursing empowerment to clarify orders and mid-phase audit and feedback. Phase 2 incorporated system-level strategies, including electronic prompts to reconcile investigation orders, frequent digital reminders and engagement of new junior doctors. Data were analysed using run charts according to standard healthcare improvement rules for special cause variation.During Phase 1, median laboratory investigations increased from 12.9 to 13.3 tests per patient-day despite comparable illness severity. ICU mortality was similar in the pre-intervention period (12.7%) and during our first study phase (12.9%), without a consistent temporal association with interventions. In Phase 2, laboratory utilisation returned to baseline levels with reduced ICU LOS and mortality. No sustained reduction was observed.In conclusion, educational and behavioural interventions alone were insufficient to de-implement entrenched ordering practices in a high-acuity ICU environment. Sustainable reduction likely requires stronger system redesign, including order-set modification and embedded decision support. Reporting null effects in de-implementation initiatives provides important insights into the structural and cultural barriers to reducing low-value care.
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.