Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 14, 2026

Hydra, a Computer-Based Platform for Aiding Clinicians in Cardiovascular Analysis and Diagnosis
Published on: September 26, 2018
Reducing duplicate testing: a comparison of two clinical decision support tools
Gary W Procop1, Catherine Keating2, Paul Stagno2
1From the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. procopg@ccf.org.
Objectives:
Unnecessary duplicate laboratory testing is common and costly. Systems-based means to avert unnecessary testing should be investigated and employed.
Methods:
We compared the effectiveness and cost savings associated with two clinical decision support tools to stop duplicate testing. The Hard Stop required telephone contact with the laboratory and justification to have the duplicate test performed, whereas the Smart Alert allowed the provider to bypass the alert at the point of order entry without justification.
Results:
The Hard Stop alert was significantly more effective than the Smart Alert (92.3% vs 42.6%, respectively; P < .0001). The cost savings realized per alert activation was $16.08/alert for the Hard Stop alert vs $3.52/alert for the Smart Alert.
Conclusions:
Structural and process changes that require laboratory contact and justification for duplicate testing are more effective than interventions that allow providers to bypass alerts without justification at point of computerized physician order entry.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Multiple Comparison Tests
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
Automated Microbial Diagnostics
Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...

