The effect of a test ordering software intervention on the prescription of unnecessary laboratory tests - a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe way software for electronic health records and laboratory tests ordering systems are designed may influence physicians’ prescription. A randomised controlled trial was performed to measure the impact of a diagnostic and laboratory tests ordering system software modification.MethodsParticipants were family physicians working and prescribing diagnostic and laboratory tests.The intervention group had a modified software with a basic shortcut menu changes, where some tests were withdrawn or added, and with the implementation of an evidence-based decision support based on United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. This intervention group was compared with usual software (control group).The outcomes were the number of tests prescribed from those: withdrawn from the basic menu; added to the basic menu; marked with green dots (USPSTF’s grade A and B); and marked with red dots (USPSTF’s grade D).ResultsComparing the monthly average number of tests prescribed before and after the software modification, from those tests that were withdrawn from the basic menu, the control group prescribed 33.8 tests per 100 consultations before and 30.8 after (p = 0075); the intervention group prescribed 31.3 before and 13.9 after (p < 0001). Comparing the tests prescribed between both groups during the intervention, from those tests that were withdrawn from the basic menu, the intervention group prescribed a monthly average of 14.0 vs. 29.3 tests per 100 consultations in the control group (p < 0.001). From those tests that are USPSTF’s grade A and B, intervention group prescribed 66.8 vs. 74.1 tests per 100 consultations in the control group (p = 0.070). From those tests categorised as USPSTF grade D, the intervention group prescribed an average of 9.8 vs. 11.8 tests per 100 consultations in the control group (p = 0.003).ConclusionsRemoving unnecessary tests from a quick shortcut menu of the diagnosis and laboratory tests ordering system had a significant impact and reduced unnecessary prescription of tests.The fact that it was not possible to perform the randomization at the family physicians’ level, but only of the computer servers is a limitation of our study. Future research should assess the impact of different tests ordering systems during longer periods.Trial registrationISRCTN45427977, May 1st 2014 (retrospectively registered).

[1]  Ofir Ben-Assuli,et al.  Assessing electronic health record systems in emergency departments: Using a decision analytic Bayesian model , 2016, Health Informatics J..

[2]  Trudy van der Weijden,et al.  Understanding laboratory testing in diagnostic uncertainty: a qualitative study in general practice. , 2002, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[3]  Sue E Bowman.  Impact of electronic health record systems on information integrity: quality and safety implications. , 2013, Perspectives in health information management.

[4]  I. Iakovidis,et al.  eHealth in Europe: from Vision to Reality. , 2008, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[5]  A. Balen,et al.  Appropriate design of biochemistry request cards can promote the use of protocols and reduce unnecessary investigations , 2001, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[6]  A. Boonstra,et al.  Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions , 2010, BMC health services research.

[7]  F. Godlee,et al.  Too much medicine; too little care , 2013, BMJ.

[8]  O. Ben-Assuli,et al.  Electronic health records, adoption, quality of care, legal and privacy issues and their implementation in emergency departments. , 2015, Health policy.

[9]  A. V. van Ginneken,et al.  Paper Versus Computer: Feasibility of an Electronic Medical Record in General Pediatrics , 2006, Pediatrics.

[10]  R. Winkens,et al.  Variation in test ordering behaviour of GPs: professional or context-related factors? , 2004, Family practice.

[11]  J C Wyatt,et al.  Computerised decision support systems in order communication for diagnostic, screening or monitoring test ordering: systematic reviews of the effects and cost-effectiveness of systems. , 2010, Health technology assessment.

[12]  Fiona Godlee,et al.  Too much medicine , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Trudy van der Weijden,et al.  Exploring the black box of change in improving test-ordering routines. , 2008, Family practice.

[14]  L. Getz,et al.  Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable? , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  V. Raposo.  Electronic health records: Is it a risk worth taking in healthcare delivery? , 2015, GMS health technology assessment.

[16]  J. Zaat,et al.  Laboratory Test Form Design Influences Test Ordering by General Practitioners in the Netherlands , 1992, Medical care.

[17]  A. Costa-Pereira,et al.  A Population-Based Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study on Preventive Health Services Utilization in Portugal—What Services (and Frequencies) Are Deemed Necessary by Patients? , 2013, PloS one.

[18]  G. Dinant,et al.  Why do patients want to have their blood tested? A qualitative study of patient expectations in general practice , 2006, BMC family practice.

[19]  J. Doust,et al.  Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  L. Azevedo,et al.  Preventive health services implemented by family physicians in Portugal—a cross-sectional study based on two clinical scenarios , 2014, BMJ Open.

[21]  J. Bailey,et al.  Change of pathology request forms can reduce unwanted requests and tests , 2005, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[22]  W O Hackl,et al.  eHealth in Europe – Status and Challenges , 2013, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[23]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  Electronic health records implementation: An evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors , 2014, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[24]  Diane Whitehouse,et al.  European Commission activities in eHealth** , 2004, International journal of circumpolar health.