A simple gatekeeping intervention improves the appropriateness of blood urea nitrogen testing
Luigi Devis,Emilie Catry,Régis Debois,Isabelle Michaux,Patrick M. Honore,Eric Pinck,Frédéric Foret,François Mullier,Mélanie Closset
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0937
2024-09-26
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Abstract:To the Editor, Evidence suggests that laboratory resources are being inappropriately used [1, 2], resulting in avoidable costs for the healthcare system. Inappropriate testing can harm patients by causing hospital-acquired (iatrogenic) anemia and increasing the risk for transfusion, infections, missed or delayed diagnosis, additional unnecessary interventions, and incidental findings. Overuse of testing can also cause discomfort and stress for patients while creating additional workload for staff, increasing costs, and having an environmental impact [3]. In this context, numerous interventions have been published aiming to improve the appropriateness of laboratory testing, including gatekeeping interventions [4]. Effective March 1st, 2023, a new Belgian regulation stipulates that patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 will not be reimbursed for blood urea nitrogen (BUN) analysis, and that the cost of tests will be charged on clinical laboratories. This retrospective before-and-after study at the CHU UCL Namur, a Belgian three-centered 936-bed academic hospital (see Supplementary Material), examines the impacts of the aforementioned regulatory changes on clinicians' prescribing patterns for BUN testing. This analysis is achieved by monitoring pre- and post-intervention test volumes, encompassing both ordered and performed tests. Additionally, cost estimates are carried out for both periods to assess the financial impact of such intervention. The study was split into four periods (P1 to P4) delineated by three successive events (Figure 1A; Supplementary Material). Briefly, P1 is the pre-intervention period and P4 is the post-intervention period (both 3 months). P2 is the period between the implementation of the new Belgian regulation and the decision of the central laboratory to implement the gatekeeping intervention. Multiple informative emails were sent to all clinicians of the three centers before the second event effectively took effect. P3 refers to the period between the implementation of the intervention and the decision to allow BUN tests ordered in ICU patients meeting a specific list of indications (see below). Evolution of BUN testing and cost estimates during study periods. (A) Intervention timeline and evolution of BUN tests ordered and performed per day. Three events delineates the four study periods (P1 to P4). "Standard tests" represent tests prescribed in a routine manner; in P1 and P2, they correspond to all tests ordered; in P3 and P4, they correspond to the tests prescribed in the appropriate indication (eGFR<30 min/mL/1.73 m 2 ). "Mandatory tests" are tests performed in patients with eGFR>30 min/mL/1.73 m 2 but explicitly requested by clinicians along with a justification, after the implementation of the gatekeeping intervention by the central laboratory (P3 and P4). Note that during P4, the "mandatory tests" category as well include tests requested by ICU clinicians that are part of the closed list of authorized tests. "Cancelled tests" represent tests requested by clinicians that do not match the intended indications and have therefore not been performed by the central laboratory. (B) Total estimated costs for pre-intervention period (P1) and post-intervention period (P4). (C) Detailed cost estimates per week for each period. The costs include direct costs of reagents, as well as manpower, investment in the automated line, and energy consumption costs (see Supplementary Material). The total cost estimates per week for each period are given above each bar. The primary outcome was BUN testing. Tests were divided into three distinct categories. Tests requested in the right indication were recorded as "standard"; this category encompasses all tests in P1 and P2 (gatekeeping intervention off), as well as tests in patients with eGFR 30 but explicitly requested by clinicians were recorded as "mandatory". Finally, in P4, a list of allowed indications for patients with eGFR >30 hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) was developed in collaboration with ICU clinicians (i.e., renal failure, blood volume assessment, dialysis, toxicity, tumor lysis syndrome, pre-eclampsia, suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding, severe catabolism and/or severe malnutrition 5], [6], [7], [8], [9). When a BUN test was ordered, a prompt appeared in the computerized physician order entry system asking the ICU clinician to select the indication for which the BUN test was requested. Tests falling into this category were recorded as "allowed". The cost estimates of BUN testing was monitored as secondary outcome. Costs were calculated by adding the cost of tests reagents and calibration reagents, the manpower cost, the investment cost, and the running (energy) cost for the -Abstract Truncated-
medical laboratory technology