The effectiveness of interventions to improve laboratory requesting patterns among primary care physicians: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundLaboratory testing is an integral part of day-to-day primary care practice, with approximately 30 % of patient encounters resulting in a request. However, research suggests that a large proportion of requests does not benefit patient care and is avoidable. The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively search the literature for studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve primary care physician use of laboratory tests.MethodsA search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus (from inception to 09/02/14) was conducted. The following study designs were considered: systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analysis (ITSs). Studies were quality appraised using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) checklist. The population of interest was primary care physicians. Interventions were considered if they aimed to improve laboratory testing in primary care. The outcome of interest was a volume of laboratory tests.ResultsIn total, 6,166 titles and abstracts were reviewed, followed by 87 full texts. Of these, 11 papers were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. This included four RCTs, six CBAs and one ITS study. The types of interventions examined included education, feedback, guidelines, education with feedback, feedback with guidelines and changing order forms. The quality of included studies varied with seven studies deemed to have a low risk of bias, three with unclear risk of bias and one with high risk of bias. All but one study found significant reductions in the volume of tests following the intervention, with effect sizes ranging from 1.2 to 60 %. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not performed.ConclusionsInterventions such as educational strategies, feedback and changing test order forms may improve the efficient use of laboratory tests in primary care; however, the level of evidence is quite low and the quality is poor. The reproducibility of findings from different laboratories is also difficult to ascertain from the literature. Some standardisation of both interventions and outcome measures is required to enable formal meta-analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0356-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: their effectiveness, gaps of knowledge, origins and significance – a scoping review

“…More information is required to determine how often the group process should be repeated, accepting the fact that once may not be enough (51, 90, 110). As there are hardly any theory-based interventions about change in clinical practice, further research should concentrate on improving our understanding of when, how and why interventions, such as education or providing guidelines, are likely to be effective and how to improve them (111).…”

“…Further, SRs and RCTs on tools used in QCs have only examined their individual impact or effectiveness. When some have been used in combination, their relative contribution to the overall effect is unclear (107, 108, 111). Finally, it is not known in what way and how many times the process of improvement should be repeated to increase effect sizes(51, 90, 110).…”

Clinical decision support improves the appropriateness of laboratory test ordering in primary care without increasing diagnostic error: the ELMO cluster randomized trial

“…Previous studies have used laboratory test volume as a surrogate for appropriateness, and our study con rms that these two outcomes are indeed correlated. [14,22,29] Our CDSS was a simple system of order sets, designed to guide GPs in ordering laboratory tests for common indications in primary care. Despite the simplicity of the CDSS, the effects of the intervention were large.…”

Optimising laboratory monitoring of chronic conditions in primary care: a quality improvement framework

“…These have included a variety of educational interventions,9 10 feedback,11–13 peer management,14 use of computer prompts,15 decision support tools16 and information about the costs of testing 17. These factors have been systematically reviewed 18–20…”