» Articles » PMID: 37085324

Does an Electronic Pathology Ordering System Change the Volume and Pattern of Routine Testing in Hospital? An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Overview
Journal J Clin Pathol
Specialty Pathology
Date 2023 Apr 21
PMID 37085324
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: Identifying and reducing low-value care is a vital issue in Australia, with pathology test ordering a common focus in this field. This study builds on previous research and aimed to quantify the impact of the implementation of an electronic ordering (e-ordering) system on the volume of pathology testing, compared with manual (paper based) ordering.

Methods: An audit and analysis of pathology test data were conducted, using an interrupted time series design to investigate the impact of the e-ordering system on pathology ordering patterns. All medical and surgical adult inpatients at a tertiary referral hospital in Newcastle, Australia, were included over a 3-year period.

Results: Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in the volume of orders due to the implementation of the e-ordering system. There was a slight increase in the aggregated volume (tests per admission and tests per bed day) of tests ordered across the entire study period, reflecting a secular trend.

Conclusions: Despite providing greater visibility and tracking of orders, we conclude that the implementation of an e-ordering system does not, in and of itself, reduce ordering volume. Efforts to identify and reduce low-value care will require intentional effort and specifically designed educational programmes or hard-wired algorithms.

References
1.
Hure A, Palazzi K, Peel R, Geraghty D, Collard P, de Malmanche T . Identifying low value pathology test ordering in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study across two hospitals. Pathology. 2019; 51(6):621-627. DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2019.06.003. View

2.
Hill P, Mareiniss D, Murphy P, Gardner H, Hsieh Y, Levy F . Significant reduction of laboratory specimen labeling errors by implementation of an electronic ordering system paired with a bar-code specimen labeling process. Ann Emerg Med. 2010; 56(6):630-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.028. View

3.
Eaton K, Levy K, Soong C, Pahwa A, Petrilli C, Ziemba J . Evidence-Based Guidelines to Eliminate Repetitive Laboratory Testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177(12):1833-1839. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5152. View

4.
Zhi M, Ding E, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R . The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11):e78962. PMC: 3829815. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078962. View

5.
Scott I, Duckett S . In search of professional consensus in defining and reducing low-value care. Med J Aust. 2015; 203(4):179-81. DOI: 10.5694/mja14.01664. View