Cargando…

Project RedDE: Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed or Delayed Abnormal Laboratory Value Actions

Failure of timely abnormal laboratory result follow-up is relatively common and may lead to harm. This study hypothesized that a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) could reduce the frequency of missed or delayed action on abnormal laboratory values. METHODS: A national cohort of pediatric pract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rinke, Michael L., Bundy, David G., Lehmann, Christoph U., Heo, Moonseong, Adelman, Jason S., Norton, Amanda, Singh, Hardeep
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31745521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000218
Descripción
Sumario:Failure of timely abnormal laboratory result follow-up is relatively common and may lead to harm. This study hypothesized that a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) could reduce the frequency of missed or delayed action on abnormal laboratory values. METHODS: A national cohort of pediatric practices was cluster-randomized to sequentially receive a QIC intervention: video conferences, transparent data sharing, a “focus on failures,” QI coaching, and tools to help reduce missed or delayed action on abnormal laboratory values. Practices recorded the percentage of patients with 5 specific abnormal laboratory values who received an appropriate provider action (control), and then, during an 8-month intervention phase, implemented QI strategies to reduce errors (intervention). Subsequently, practices collected data on laboratory errors while working to reduce unrelated second (sustain phase), and third (maintenance phase) errors. Generalized mixed-effects regression models compared the mean percentage of patients with appropriate actions. RESULTS: We randomized 43 practices, of which 31 were included in analyses. Control and intervention phases included 1,357 and 1,426 patients with abnormal laboratory values, respectively. The mean percentage of patients who received appropriate actions did not change comparing control and intervention phases [risk difference (RD) 1%; 95% CI −1%, 3%]. In post-hoc analyses, practices significantly improved comparing control to sustain (RD 3%; 95% CI 0.3%, 6%) and maintenance phases (RD 6%; 95% CI 3%, 9%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a QIC did not reduce the frequency of abnormal laboratory errors in the initial 8-month intervention phase. A significant reduction was appreciated comparing sustain and maintenance phases (months 9–24) to the control phase.