Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13(03): 656-664
DOI: 10.1055/a-1854-4253
Research Article

Displaying Cost and Completion Time for Reference Laboratory Test Orders—A Randomized Controlled Trial

Shohei Ikoma
1   Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Logan Pierce
2   Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States
,
Douglas S. Bell
3   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Eric M. Cheng
4   Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Thomas Drake
5   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Rong Guo
6   Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Alyssa Ziman
7   Wing-Kwai and Alice Lee-Tsing Chung Transfusion Service, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Reduction in unnecessary services is one strategy for increasing the value of health care. Reference laboratory, or send-out, tests are associated with considerable costs. We investigated whether displaying cost and turnaround time (TAT), or time-to-result, for reference laboratory tests at the time of order entry in the electronic health record (EHR) system would impact provider ordering practices.

Methods Reference laboratory test cost and TAT data were randomized prior to the study and only displayed for the intervention group. A 24-month dataset composed of 12 months each for baseline and study periods was extracted from the clinical data mart. A difference-in-differences (DID) analysis was conducted using a linear mixed-effects model to estimate the association between the intervention and changes in test-ordering patterns.

Results In the inpatient setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.31 and p = 0.26, respectively). In the ambulatory setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.82 and p = 0.51, respectively). For both inpatient and ambulatory settings, no significant difference was observed in the DID of aggregate test-order costs and volumes calculated in respect to stratified relative cost and TAT groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion Lack of alternative tests, test orders placed at a late step in patient management, and orders facilitated by trainees or mid-level providers may have limited the efficacy of the intervention. Our randomized study demonstrated no significant association between the display of cost or TAT display and ordering frequency.

Keywords

decision support - clinical - review - quality improvement

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The institutional review board approved the project as exempt human subjects research study because it was viewed as a quality-improvement project.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 16 January 2022

Accepted: 11 May 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
17 May 2022

Article published online:
06 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C. et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (12) 1833-1839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Silvestri MT, Bongiovanni TR, Glover JG, Gross CP. Impact of price display on provider ordering: a systematic review. J Hosp Med 2016; 11 (01) 65-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fang DZ, Sran G, Gessner D. et al. Cost and turn-around time display decreases inpatient ordering of reference laboratory tests: a time series. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 (12) 994-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tierney WM, Miller ME, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization. JAMA 1993; 269 (03) 379-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Everett GD, deBlois CS, Chang P-F, Holets T. Effect of cost education, cost audits, and faculty chart review on the use of laboratory services. Arch Intern Med 1983; 143 (05) 942-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nougon G, Muschart X, Gérard V. et al. Does offering pricing information to resident physicians in the emergency department potentially reduce laboratory and radiology costs?. Eur J Emerg Med 2015; 22 (04) 247-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D. et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (10) 903-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Horn DM, Koplan KE, Senese MD, Orav EJ, Sequist TD. The impact of cost displays on primary care physician laboratory test ordering. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29 (05) 708-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ellemdin S, Rheeder P, Soma P. Providing clinicians with information on laboratory test costs leads to reduction in hospital expenditure. S Afr Med J 2011; 101 (10) 746-748
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schilling UM. Cutting costs: the impact of price lists on the cost development at the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2010; 17 (06) 337-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Seguin P, Bleichner JP, Grolier J, Guillou YM, Mallédant Y. Effects of price information on test ordering in an intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28 (03) 332-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Jha A. et al. Does the computerized display of charges affect inpatient ancillary test utilization?. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157 (21) 2501-2508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tierney WM, Miller ME, McDonald CJ. The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1990; 322 (21) 1499-1504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sedrak MS, Myers JS, Small DS. et al. Effect of a price transparency intervention in the electronic health record on clinician ordering of inpatient laboratory tests: the PRICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (07) 939-945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schmidt RL, Colbert-Getz JM, Milne CK. et al. Impact of laboratory charge display within the electronic health record across an entire academic medical center: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Pathol 2017; 148 (06) 513-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 MacMillan D, Lewandrowski E, Lewandrowski K. An analysis of reference laboratory (send out) testing: an 8-year experience in a large academic medical center. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2004; 18 (04) 216-219
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Krasowski MD, Chudzik D, Dolezal A. et al. Promoting improved utilization of laboratory testing through changes in an electronic medical record: experience at an academic medical center. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2015; 15: 11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chan AJ, Chan J, Cafazzo JA. et al. Order sets in health care: a systematic review of their effects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28 (03) 235-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ahmadian L, Khajouei R. Impact of computerized order sets on practitioner performance. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012; 180: 1129-1131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gartner D, Zhang Y, Padman R. Cognitive workload reduction in hospital information systems: decision support for order set optimization. Health Care Manage Sci 2018; 21 (02) 224-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Levick D. et al. Improving Outcomes with Clinical Decision Support: an Implementer's Guide. Chicago, IL: HIMSS Publishing; 2012
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hendrickson CD, McLemore MF, Dahir KM, et al. Is the climb worth the view? the savings/alert ratio for reducing vitamin D testing. Appl Clin Inform 2020;11(1):160-165
    PubMed
  • 23 Kawamoto K, Lobach DF. Clinical decision support provided within physician order entry systems: a systematic review of features effective for changing clinician behavior. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 2003: 361-365
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Escovedo C, Bell D, Cheng E. et al. Noninterruptive clinical decision support decreases ordering of respiratory viral panels during influenza season. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (02) 315-322
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kurant DE, Baron JM, Strazimiri G, Lewandrowski KB, Rudolf JW, Dighe AS. Creation and use of an electronic health record reporting database to improve a laboratory test utilization program. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 519-527
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Baron JM, Dighe AS. The role of informatics and decision support in utilization management. Clin Chim Acta 2014; 427: 196-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Orenstein EW, Boudreaux J, Rollins M. et al. Formative usability testing reduces severe blood product ordering errors. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 981-990
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar