Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1854-4253
Displaying Cost and Completion Time for Reference Laboratory Test Orders—A Randomized Controlled Trial
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00035026/202203/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-a-1854-4253_210323ra-1.jpg)
Abstract
Objectives Reduction in unnecessary services is one strategy for increasing the value of health care. Reference laboratory, or send-out, tests are associated with considerable costs. We investigated whether displaying cost and turnaround time (TAT), or time-to-result, for reference laboratory tests at the time of order entry in the electronic health record (EHR) system would impact provider ordering practices.
Methods Reference laboratory test cost and TAT data were randomized prior to the study and only displayed for the intervention group. A 24-month dataset composed of 12 months each for baseline and study periods was extracted from the clinical data mart. A difference-in-differences (DID) analysis was conducted using a linear mixed-effects model to estimate the association between the intervention and changes in test-ordering patterns.
Results In the inpatient setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.31 and p = 0.26, respectively). In the ambulatory setting, the DIDs of aggregate test-order costs and volume were not different among the control and intervention groups (p = 0.82 and p = 0.51, respectively). For both inpatient and ambulatory settings, no significant difference was observed in the DID of aggregate test-order costs and volumes calculated in respect to stratified relative cost and TAT groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion Lack of alternative tests, test orders placed at a late step in patient management, and orders facilitated by trainees or mid-level providers may have limited the efficacy of the intervention. Our randomized study demonstrated no significant association between the display of cost or TAT display and ordering frequency.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
The institutional review board approved the project as exempt human subjects research study because it was viewed as a quality-improvement project.
Publication History
Received: 16 January 2022
Accepted: 11 May 2022
Accepted Manuscript online:
17 May 2022
Article published online:
06 July 2022
© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C. et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (12) 1833-1839
- 2 Silvestri MT, Bongiovanni TR, Glover JG, Gross CP. Impact of price display on provider ordering: a systematic review. J Hosp Med 2016; 11 (01) 65-76
- 3 Fang DZ, Sran G, Gessner D. et al. Cost and turn-around time display decreases inpatient ordering of reference laboratory tests: a time series. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 (12) 994-1000
- 4 Tierney WM, Miller ME, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization. JAMA 1993; 269 (03) 379-383
- 5 Everett GD, deBlois CS, Chang P-F, Holets T. Effect of cost education, cost audits, and faculty chart review on the use of laboratory services. Arch Intern Med 1983; 143 (05) 942-944
- 6 Nougon G, Muschart X, Gérard V. et al. Does offering pricing information to resident physicians in the emergency department potentially reduce laboratory and radiology costs?. Eur J Emerg Med 2015; 22 (04) 247-252
- 7 Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D. et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (10) 903-908
- 8 Horn DM, Koplan KE, Senese MD, Orav EJ, Sequist TD. The impact of cost displays on primary care physician laboratory test ordering. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29 (05) 708-714
- 9 Ellemdin S, Rheeder P, Soma P. Providing clinicians with information on laboratory test costs leads to reduction in hospital expenditure. S Afr Med J 2011; 101 (10) 746-748
- 10 Schilling UM. Cutting costs: the impact of price lists on the cost development at the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2010; 17 (06) 337-339
- 11 Seguin P, Bleichner JP, Grolier J, Guillou YM, Mallédant Y. Effects of price information on test ordering in an intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28 (03) 332-335
- 12 Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Jha A. et al. Does the computerized display of charges affect inpatient ancillary test utilization?. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157 (21) 2501-2508
- 13 Tierney WM, Miller ME, McDonald CJ. The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1990; 322 (21) 1499-1504
- 14 Sedrak MS, Myers JS, Small DS. et al. Effect of a price transparency intervention in the electronic health record on clinician ordering of inpatient laboratory tests: the PRICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (07) 939-945
- 15 Schmidt RL, Colbert-Getz JM, Milne CK. et al. Impact of laboratory charge display within the electronic health record across an entire academic medical center: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Pathol 2017; 148 (06) 513-522
- 16 MacMillan D, Lewandrowski E, Lewandrowski K. An analysis of reference laboratory (send out) testing: an 8-year experience in a large academic medical center. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2004; 18 (04) 216-219
- 17 Krasowski MD, Chudzik D, Dolezal A. et al. Promoting improved utilization of laboratory testing through changes in an electronic medical record: experience at an academic medical center. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2015; 15: 11
- 18 Chan AJ, Chan J, Cafazzo JA. et al. Order sets in health care: a systematic review of their effects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28 (03) 235-240
- 19 Ahmadian L, Khajouei R. Impact of computerized order sets on practitioner performance. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012; 180: 1129-1131
- 20 Gartner D, Zhang Y, Padman R. Cognitive workload reduction in hospital information systems: decision support for order set optimization. Health Care Manage Sci 2018; 21 (02) 224-243
- 21 Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Levick D. et al. Improving Outcomes with Clinical Decision Support: an Implementer's Guide. Chicago, IL: HIMSS Publishing; 2012
- 22 Hendrickson CD, McLemore MF, Dahir KM, et al. Is the climb worth the view? the savings/alert ratio for reducing vitamin D testing. Appl Clin Inform 2020;11(1):160-165
- 23 Kawamoto K, Lobach DF. Clinical decision support provided within physician order entry systems: a systematic review of features effective for changing clinician behavior. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 2003: 361-365
- 24 Escovedo C, Bell D, Cheng E. et al. Noninterruptive clinical decision support decreases ordering of respiratory viral panels during influenza season. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (02) 315-322
- 25 Kurant DE, Baron JM, Strazimiri G, Lewandrowski KB, Rudolf JW, Dighe AS. Creation and use of an electronic health record reporting database to improve a laboratory test utilization program. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 519-527
- 26 Baron JM, Dighe AS. The role of informatics and decision support in utilization management. Clin Chim Acta 2014; 427: 196-201
- 27 Orenstein EW, Boudreaux J, Rollins M. et al. Formative usability testing reduces severe blood product ordering errors. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 981-990