This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Introduction/Objective Comparisons of diagnostic testing across multiple health systems over multiple years are uncommon. Such comparisons would quantify variations in test use between health systems. Methods/Case Report Using the Vizient Clinical Database, we compared clinical laboratory and imaging utilization for hospitalized adult sepsis patients (N = 69,035) over three years (2017-2019) at 19 large academic-affiliated health systems across the United States. We used Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups (MSDRG), employed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and identified sepsis patients (MSDRG triplet 870/871/872). We stratified hospitalized sepsis patients by severity of illness (SOI) into high severity (MSDRG 870), moderate severity (MSDRG 871), and low severity (MSDRG 872) groups. SOI further categorizes patients within a diagnostic group, quantifying the extent of comorbid conditions and complications. We measured hospital length of stay (LOS), number of laboratory tests (CPT codes 80000-89999), and number of imaging studies (CPT codes 70000-79999). We divided the number of laboratory tests and radiology studies by mean hospital LOS (in days) to calculate laboratory tests and imaging studies per hospital day. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Between health systems, lowest and highest values for laboratory and imaging utilization ranged from 50.1 to 141.3 tests per hospitalization and 1.4 to 7.2 studies per hospitalization, respectively. Differences in laboratory tests between health systems persisted after adjusting for SOI with low to high laboratory tests per hospitalization ranging from 127.8 to 405.7, 51.0 to 144.7, and 31.9 to 78.2, for high, moderate, and low SOI groups. Utilization ranges were smaller for imaging studies. After adjusting for hospital LOS, laboratory testing differences between health systems were more pronounced and with low and high laboratory test per day utilization of 6.5 to 24.3, 6.1 to 18.5, and 6.0 to 17.1, for high, moderate, and low SOI groups. Differences in radiology studies were not as pronounced after adjusting for LOS. Conclusion There is considerable variation among health systems in laboratory and radiology resource utilization for hospitalized sepsis patients. This variation persists, especially for laboratory testing, after adjusting for SOI and LOS.
Introduction/Objective With rising healthcare costs in the United States, there has been a push for lab stewardship to improve the quality of patient care while reducing costs. To optimize the use of clinical laboratory testing, the ASCP working with other medical specialty organizations, developed the Choosing Wisely Campaign to promulgate evidence-based guidelines to optimize clinical laboratory testing. Methods/Case Report We examined adherence to three Choosing Wisely guidelines over a four-year period (2017- 2020), through queries of internal cost accounting databases to return aggregate volumes as well as variable and total costs at three large academic health systems. We measured concurrent orders for: 1) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) with C-reactive protein (CRP), 2) serum/plasma amylase with lipase, and 3) free thyroxine (FT4) and/or total triiodothyronine (TT3) with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) when the TSH is within the reference range (using an frequency estimate of 85% based on other studies). We also examined another guideline for concurrent orders for serum aldolase with creatine kinase (CK). We also quantified aggregate variable costs for the non-recommended test in each Choosing Wisely guideline (amylase, ESR, FT4 and/or TT3), and for serum aldolase when ordered with CK. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Over the four-year period, there were 322,853 unnecessary tests based on these four guidelines (120,587 ESR and CRP, 30,444 amylase and lipase, 164,818 FT4 and/or TT3 with TSH, and 7,004 aldolase). Overall, unnecessary testing decreased between 2017 and 2020 for amylase with lipase, remained essentially unchanged for aldolase, and increased for the other two test guideline scenarios. The largest changes were concurrent orders for amylase and lipase at one health system (38% decrease), and orders for TT3 with a normal TSH result at another health system (324% increase). The four-year variable cost of these unnecessary tests was $1,215,309 ($303,827 mean annual cost), resulting in potential annual variable cost savings of $101,276 for each health system for the four guidelines we examined. Variable costs for unnecessary testing increased by 16.5% ($45,571) over the four-year period. Conclusion Guideline-based unnecessary testing remains as a target to improve laboratory diagnostic testing. There is potential to realize significant achievable cost savings if guidelines are implemented and maintained.
Introduction/Objective Comparisons of diagnostic test utilization for outpatient encounters across multiple health systems are uncommon. Such comparisons are helpful to establish baseline diagnostic testing patterns across health systems. Methods/Case Report Using the Vizient Clinical Database, we compared the number of clinical laboratory tests (CPT codes 80000-89999) and imaging studies (CPT codes 70000-79999) per outpatient encounter for patients with urinary tract infection (UTI, N=97,714) or dysuria (N=125,388). We employed primary ICD-10 codes for UTI (N39.0) and dysuria (R30.0, R30.9, R35.0, R39.15) to define each patient group. We measured the aggregate Clinical Resource Intensity Weight (RIW) per outpatient visit to quantify diagnostic resource consumption for each encounter. The RIW is based on the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) weights. CMS assigns an APC weight to each diagnostic test based on the geometric mean cost of each particular test. We compared diagnostic testing at 20 academically affiliated health systems across the United States (2017- 2019) with >500 annual outpatient visits for UTI and dysuria. We also examined two relevant tests: urinalysis (CPT codes 8100, 81001, 81002, 81003, 81005, 81007, and 81015) and basic urine culture (CPT code 87086) testing patterns. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) The mean number of laboratory tests was 4.30 tests (range 3.04-5.89) and 3.01 (range 2.41-3.86) for UTI and dysuria patients, respectively. Average laboratory RIW and quantity were moderately correlated with a mean RIW of 0.50 and 0.38 for UTI and dysuria patients, respectively. The mean number of imaging studies for each group was 0.26 (range 0.08-0.46) and 0.05 (range 0.01-0.14), respectively. Average imaging RIW and quantity were more highly correlated with a mean RIW of 0.52 and 0.11 for UTI and dysuria patients, respectively. UTI encounters averaged 0.78 (range 0.38-1.28) urinalysis tests and 0.65 (range 0.39-0.86) urine cultures. Dysuria patient visits averaged 0.77 (range 0.45-1.17) urinalysis tests and 0.58 (range 0.13-0.76) urine cultures. Conclusion There are significant differences in diagnostic tests and resource utilization between large health systems for patients with UTI and dysuria. These differences persist with specific test comparisons for urinalysis and urine culture.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.