Background Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at high risk of anemia, and phlebotomy is a potentially modifiable source of blood loss. Our objective was to quantify daily phlebotomy volume for ICU patients, including blood discarded as waste during vascular access, and evaluate the impact of phlebotomy volume on patient outcomes. Methods This was a retrospective observational cohort study between September 2014 and August 2015 at a tertiary care academic medical-surgical ICU. A prospective audit of phlebotomy practices in March 2018 was used to estimate blood waste during vascular access. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate phlebotomy volume as a predictor of ICU nadir hemoglobin < 80 g/L, and red blood cell transfusion. Results There were 428 index ICU admissions, median age 64.4 yr, 41% female. Forty-four patients (10%) with major bleeding events were excluded. Mean bedside waste per blood draw (144 draws) was: 3.9 mL from arterial lines, 5.5 mL central venous lines, and 6.3 mL from peripherally inserted central catheters. Mean phlebotomy volume per patient day was 48.1 ± 22.2 mL; 33.1 ± 15.0 mL received by the lab and 15.0 ± 8.1 mL discarded as bedside waste. Multivariable regression, including age, sex, admission hemoglobin, sequential organ failure assessment score, and ICU length of stay, showed total daily phlebotomy volume was predictive of hemoglobin <80 g/L (p = 0.002), red blood cell transfusion (p<0.001), and inpatient mortality (p = 0.002). For every 5 mL increase in average daily phlebotomy the odds ratio for nadir hemoglobin <80 g/L was 1.18 (95% CI 1.07–1.31) and for red blood cell transfusion was 1.17 (95% CI 1.07–1.28). Conclusion A substantial portion of daily ICU phlebotomy is waste discarded during vascular access. Average ICU phlebotomy volume is independently associated with ICU acquired anemia and red blood cell transfusion which supports the need for phlebotomy stewardship programs.
Discharge summary templates, educational interventions for discharging physicians, and email alerts when TPAD results are finalized show promise in improving management of TPADs. Given the complexity of the processes necessary to ensure follow-up of TPADs, rigorous evaluations of multifaceted interventions (e.g., improved discharge documentation of TPADs combined with email alerts when results become available) is needed.
Background: In-hospital transfers such as from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the general internal medicine (GIM) ward place patients at risk of adverse events. A structured handover tool may improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Objective: To develop, implement, and evaluate a customized user-designed transfer tool to improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Methods: This was a pre–post intervention study at a tertiary academic hospital. We developed and implemented a user-designed, structured, handwritten ICU-to-GIM transfer tool. The tool included active medical issues, functional status, medications and medication changes, consulting services, code status, and emergency contact information. Transfer tool users included GIM physicians, ICU physicians, and critical care rapid response team nurses. An implementation audit and mixed qualitative and quantitative analysis of pre–post survey responses was used to evaluate clinician satisfaction and the perceived quality of patient transfers. Results: The pre–post survey response rate was 51.8% (99/191). Respondents included GIM residents (58.5%), ICU rapid response team physicians and nurses (24.2%), and GIM attending physicians (17.2%). Less than half of clinicians (48.8%) reported that the preintervention transfer process was adequate. Clinicians who used the transfer tool reported that the transfer process was improved (93.3% vs. 48.8%, P = 0.03). Clinician-reported understanding of medication changes in the ICU increased (69.2% vs. 29.1%, P = 0.004), as did their ability to plan for a safe hospital discharge (69.2% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.01). However, only 64.2% of audited transfers used the tool. Frequently omitted sections included home medications (missing in 83.4% of audits), new medications (33.3%), and secondary diagnosis (33.3%). Thematic analysis of free-text responses identified areas for improvement including clarifying the course of ICU events and enhancing tool usability. Conclusion: A user-designed, structured, handwritten transfer tool may improve the perceived quality of patient transfers from the ICU to the GIM wards.
BACKGROUND: Missed test results are a cause of medical error. Few studies have explored test result management in the inpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To examine test result management practices of general internal medicine providers in the inpatient setting, examine satisfaction with practices, and quantify self-reported delays in result follow-up. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: General internal medicine attending physicians and trainees (residents and medical students) at three Canadian teaching hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Methods used to track test results; satisfaction with these methods; personal encounters with results respondents Bwish they had known about sooner.K EY RESULTS: We received surveys from 33/51 attendings and 99/108 trainees (response rate 83%). Only 40.9% of respondents kept a record of all tests they order, and 50.0% had a system to ensure ordered tests were completed. Methods for tracking test results included typed team sign-out lists (40.7%), electronic health record (EHR) functionality (e.g., the electronic Binbox^) (38.9%), and personal written or typed lists (14.8%). Almost all trainees (97.9%) and attendings (81.2%) reported encountering at least one test result they Bwish they had known about sooner^in the past 2 months (p = 0.001). A higher percentage of attendings kept a record of tests pending at hospital discharge compared to trainees (75.0% vs. 35.7%, p < 0.001), used EHR functionality to track tests (71.4% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.004), and reported higher satisfaction with result management (42.4% vs. 12.1% satisfied or very satisfied, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian physicians report an array of problems managing test results in the inpatient setting. In the context of prior studies from the outpatient setting, our study suggests a need to develop interventions to prevent missed results and avoid potential patient harms.
BackgroundOver-testing is a recognized problem, but clinicians usually lack information about their personal test ordering volumes. In the absence of data, clinicians rely on self-perception to inform their test ordering practices. In this study we explore clinician self-perception of diagnostic test ordering intensity.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of inpatient General Internal Medicine (GIM) attending physicians and trainees at three Canadian teaching hospitals. We collected information about: self-reported test ordering intensity, perception of colleagues test ordering intensity, and importance of clinical utility, patient comfort, and cost when ordering tests. We compared responses of clinicians who self-identified as high vs low utilizers of diagnostic tests, and attending physicians vs trainees.ResultsOnly 15% of inpatient GIM clinicians self-identified as high utilizers of diagnostic tests, while 73% felt that GIM clinicians in aggregate (“others”) order too many tests. Survey respondents identified clinical utility as important when choosing to order tests (selected by 94%), followed by patient comfort (48%) and cost (23%). Self-identified low/average utilizers of diagnostic tests were more likely to report considering cost compared to high utilizers (27% vs 5%, P = 0.04). Attending physicians were more likely to consider patient comfort (70% vs 41%, p = 0.01) and cost (42% vs 17%, p = 0.003) than trainees.ConclusionsIn the absence of data, providers seem to recognize that over investigation is a problem, but few self-identify as being high test utilizers. Moreover, a significant percentage of respondents did not consider cost or patient discomfort when ordering tests. Our findings highlight challenges in reducing over-testing in the current era.
BackgroundCritically ill patients receive frequent routine and recurring blood tests, some of which are unnecessary.AimTo reduce unnecessary routine phlebotomy in a 30-bed tertiary medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in Toronto, Ontario.MethodsThis prospective quality improvement study included a 7-month preintervention baseline, 5-month intervention and 11-month postintervention period. Change strategies included education, ICU rounds checklists, electronic order set modifications, an electronic test add-on tool and audit and feedback. The primary outcome was mean volume of blood collected per patient-day. Secondary outcomes included the number blood tubes used and red cell transfusions. Balancing measures included the timing and types of blood tests, ICU length of stay and mortality. Outcomes were evaluated using process control charts and segmented regression.ResultsPatient demographics did not differ between time periods; total number of patients: 2096, median age: 61 years, 60% male. Mean phlebotomy volume±SD decreased from 41.1±4.0 to 34.1±4.7 mL/patient-day. Special cause variation was met at 13 weeks. Segmental regression demonstrated an immediate postintervention decrease of 6.6 mL/patient-day (95% CI 1.8 to 11.4 p=0.009), which was sustained. Blood tube consumption decreased by 1.4 tubes/patient-day (95% CI 0.4 to 2.4, p=0.005) amounting to 13 276 tubes (95% CI 4602 to 22 127 tubes) saved over 11 months. Red blood cell transfusions decreased from 10.5±5.2 to 8.3±4.4 transfusions/100 patient-days (incident rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.88, p=0.01). There was no impact on length of stay (2 days, IQR 1–5) and mortality (18.1%±2.0%).ConclusionIterative improvement interventions targeting clinician test ordering behaviour can reduce ICU phlebotomy and may impact red cell transfusions. Frequent stakeholder consultation, incorporating stewardship into daily workflow, and audit and feedback are effective strategies.
Patients with possible CD spend considerable time in the health care system before they undergo definitive assessment. Understanding the reasons for not seeking care may be useful for promoting earlier evaluation and intervention to result in better outcomes.
Introduction: Frequent blood testing in the intensive care unit (ICU) is instrumental to patient diagnosis, monitoring, and titration of invasive therapies. However, there is a growing appreciation that a significant proportion of ICU blood tests are reflexive and unnecessary.1,2 Serial phlebotomy is associated with extended hospital length of stay and acquired anemia in the general hospital population.3 Since patients in the ICU are prone to developing anemia,4,5 they are likely at increased risk of harm from serial phlebotomy. In response, multiple recent campaigns advocate for physician restraint in laboratory test ordering.6,7 However, relatively little is known about the effect of excessive phlebotomy on outcomes in critically ill patients. Better understanding of ICU phlebotomy practices, and harms associated with serial testing, is important in planning, implementing, and evaluating phlebotomy reduction interventions. Objectives: 1) Quantify average daily phlebotomy volume for ICU patients including blood discarded as waste when accessing vascular devices. 2) Identify if average daily phlebotomy volume is an independent risk factor for ICU acquired anemia (hemoglobin < 80 g/L) or the need for red blood cell transfusion. 3) Explore the relationship between daily phlebotomy volume and hospital mortality. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study at an academic tertiary care center in Toronto, Ontario, utilizing hospital administrative data, laboratory data, and select chart review. Index Medical Surgical ICU admissions between September 2014 and August 2015 with an ICU stay of three days or greater were included. Major bleeding events were defined as a hemoglobin drop of 30 g/L within a 24 hour period. Average daily phlebotomy volumes were calculated using the number of samples received by the lab multiplied by standard blood volumes required for each sample type. A bedside prospective audit was conducted in March 2018 to quantify average blood volume discarded as waste during phlebotomy. Blood discard/waste data were summarized with descriptive statistics, but not included in further analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to study the association between average daily phlebotomy volume and each of: nadir hemoglobin (< 80 g/L), the need for red blood cell transfusion, and hospital mortality. Patients with a major bleeding event were excluded from the regression. Control variables included sex, age, ICU length of stay, admission hemoglobin, and admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Results: There were a total of 525 index patient admissions, mean age 62.1 yr, 41% female (Table 1). Fifty-two (52) patients had a major bleeding event in the ICU. Mean phlebotomy volume per patient day was 28.3 mL (95% CI 27.4 - 29.1 mL, stdev 10.1 mL). Mean bedside waste during the phlebotomy audit (total of 144 blood draws) varied by vascular access: 3.9 mL for arterial, 5.5 mL for central venous, and 6.25 mL for peripherally inserted catheters. The mean estimated daily bedside waste for phlebotomy was 14.8 mL per patient day. Outcomes of logistical regression, excluding patients with major bleeding events, are summarized in Table 2. Average daily phlebotomy volume (mL) was predictive of nadir hemoglobin < 80 g/L (parameter estimate 0.091, p <0.001), the need for red blood cell transfusion (0.092, p<0.001), and inpatient mortality (0.053, <0.001). For every 5 mL increase in average daily phlebotomy, the odds ratio (OR) for nadir hemoglobin < 80 g/L was 1.58 (95% CI 1.31 - 1.90) and the OR for a red cell transfusion was 1.58 (95% CI 1.33 - 1.87). Conclusion: Daily ICU phlebotomy volume is associated with ICU acquired anemia and the need for red blood cell transfusion, including in a multivariable model with patient demographics, major bleeding events, and severity of illness as estimated by day 1 SOFA score. However, the ICU admission SOFA score was only weakly predictive of mortality, and the unexpected association between average daily phlebotomy and mortality needs to be further explored. It is possible that in this data set day 1 SOFA score did not completely control for severity of illness. Our findings support the need for ongoing phlebotomy stewardship interventions in the ICU. We suggest ICU acquired anemia and the need for red blood cell transfusion are appropriate patient outcome measures to evaluate stewardship interventions. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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.