Cited by 292Healthcare cost, quality, practicesElectronic Health Records SystemsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests

Bates, David W, Kuperman, Gilad J, Rittenberg, Eve, Teich, Jonathan M, Fiskio, Julie, Ma’luf, Nell, Onderdonk, Andrew, Wybenga, Donald +4 more·1999·The American Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Purpose To determine the impact of giving physicians computerized reminders about apparently redundant clinical laboratory tests.Subjects and methods We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial that included all inpatients at a large teaching hospital during a 15-week period. The intervention consisted of computerized reminders at the time a test was ordered that appeared to be redundant. Main outcome measures were the proportions of clinical laboratory orders that were canceled and the proportion of the tests that were actually performed.Results During the study period, there were 939 apparently redundant laboratory tests among the 77,609 study tests that were ordered among the intervention (n = 5,700 patients) and control (n = 5,886 patients) groups. In the intervention group, 69% (300 of 437) of tests were canceled in response to reminders. Of 137 overrides, 41% appeared to be justified based on chart review. In the control group, 51% of ordered redundant tests were performed, whereas in the intervention group only 27% of ordered redundant tests were performed (P <0.001). However, the estimated annual savings in laboratory charges was only $35,000. This occurred because only 44% of redundant tests performed had computer orders, because only half the computer orders were screened for redundancy, and because almost one-third of the reminders were overridden.Conclusions Reminders about orders for apparently redundant laboratory tests were effective when delivered. However, the overall effect was limited because many tests were performed without corresponding computer orders, and many orders were not screened for redundancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9343(98)00410-0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 292

Authors
Bates, D. W., Kuperman, G. J., Rittenberg, E., Teich, J. M., Fiskio, J., Ma’luf, N., Onderdonk, A., Wybenga, D., Winkelman, J., Brennan, T. A., Komaroff, A. L., & Tanasijevic, M.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Bates, David W
Venue
The American Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-02
Volume
106
Issue
2
Pages
144-150
ISSN
0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072990706
Cited by
292
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 17
FWCI
19.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01-HS08927)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
computerized reminders, laboratory test utilization, inpatient laboratory testing, electronic health records
MeSH terms
Boston, Computers, Diagnosis, Differential, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Prospective Studies, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Unnecessary Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review