The Impact of a Standardized Pre-visit Laboratory Testing Panel in the Internal Medicine Outpatient Clinic: a Controlled "On-Off" Trial.
ambulatory care
clinical chemistry tests
diagnosis
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
received:
15
06
2020
accepted:
13
12
2020
pubmed:
24
1
2021
medline:
6
8
2021
entrez:
23
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In several settings, a shorter time to diagnosis has been shown to lead to improved clinical outcomes. The implementation of a rapid laboratory testing allows for a pre-visit testing in the outpatient clinic, meaning that test results are available during the first outpatient visit. To determine whether the pre-visit laboratory testing leads to a shorter time to diagnosis in the general internal medicine outpatient clinic. An "on-off" trial, allocating subjects to one of two treatment arms in consecutive alternating blocks. All new referrals to the internal medicine outpatient clinic of a university hospital were included, excluding second opinions. A total of 595 patients were eligible; one person declined to participate, leaving data from 594 patients for analysis. In the intervention group, patients had a standardized pre-visit laboratory testing before the first visit. The primary outcome was the time to diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were the correctness of the preliminary diagnosis on the first day, health care utilization, and patient and physician satisfaction. There was no difference in time to diagnosis between the two groups (median 35 days vs 35 days; hazard ratio 1.03 [0.87-1.22]; p = .71). The pre-visit testing group had higher proportions of both correct preliminary diagnoses on day 1 (24% vs 14%; p = .003) and diagnostic workups being completed on day 1 (10% vs 3%; p < .001). The intervention group had more laboratory tests done (50.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 39.0-69.0] vs 43.0 [IQR 31.0-68.5]; p < .001). Otherwise, there were no differences between the groups. Pre-visit testing did not lead to a shorter overall time to diagnosis. However, a greater proportion of patients had a correct diagnosis on the first day. Further studies should focus on customizing pre-visit laboratory panels, to improve their efficacy. NL5009.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In several settings, a shorter time to diagnosis has been shown to lead to improved clinical outcomes. The implementation of a rapid laboratory testing allows for a pre-visit testing in the outpatient clinic, meaning that test results are available during the first outpatient visit.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether the pre-visit laboratory testing leads to a shorter time to diagnosis in the general internal medicine outpatient clinic.
DESIGN
An "on-off" trial, allocating subjects to one of two treatment arms in consecutive alternating blocks.
PARTICIPANTS
All new referrals to the internal medicine outpatient clinic of a university hospital were included, excluding second opinions. A total of 595 patients were eligible; one person declined to participate, leaving data from 594 patients for analysis.
INTERVENTION
In the intervention group, patients had a standardized pre-visit laboratory testing before the first visit.
MAIN MEASURES
The primary outcome was the time to diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were the correctness of the preliminary diagnosis on the first day, health care utilization, and patient and physician satisfaction.
KEY RESULTS
There was no difference in time to diagnosis between the two groups (median 35 days vs 35 days; hazard ratio 1.03 [0.87-1.22]; p = .71). The pre-visit testing group had higher proportions of both correct preliminary diagnoses on day 1 (24% vs 14%; p = .003) and diagnostic workups being completed on day 1 (10% vs 3%; p < .001). The intervention group had more laboratory tests done (50.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 39.0-69.0] vs 43.0 [IQR 31.0-68.5]; p < .001). Otherwise, there were no differences between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Pre-visit testing did not lead to a shorter overall time to diagnosis. However, a greater proportion of patients had a correct diagnosis on the first day. Further studies should focus on customizing pre-visit laboratory panels, to improve their efficacy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
NL5009.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33483828
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06453-2
pii: 10.1007/s11606-020-06453-2
pmc: PMC8298644
doi:
Banques de données
NTR
['NL5009']
Types de publication
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1914-1920Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(1):13-9
pubmed: 17243908
Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 31;112 Suppl 1:S92-107
pubmed: 25734382
J Clin Microbiol. 1989 Jun;27(6):1342-5
pubmed: 2473995
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004 Jul;43(7):906-14
pubmed: 15113999
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1401-1407
pubmed: 30105371
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 04;11(3):e0149856
pubmed: 26942417
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 May;139(5):636-41
pubmed: 25152311
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015 Apr;53(5):731-42
pubmed: 25301675
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 Oct;23(10):1825-1831
pubmed: 28885229
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2017 Jul;11(4):337-344
pubmed: 28380272
Trials. 2015 Aug 25;16:375
pubmed: 26303892