Effectiveness of minimum retesting intervals in managing repetitive laboratory testing: experience from a Croatian

Ivana Lapić1, Dunja Rogić1, Mirjana Fuček1

  • 1Department of Laboratory Diagnostics, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

Biochemia Medica
|October 19, 2019
PubMed
Abstract

Insights

Implementing minimum retesting intervals (MRI) for laboratory tests showed limited success in reducing test repetition and costs. Further improvements are needed to optimize this protocol for inpatient settings.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Pathology
  • Laboratory Medicine
  • Healthcare Management

Background:

  • Inappropriate laboratory retesting is a significant issue in inpatient settings.
  • Minimum Retesting Intervals (MRI) protocols are a strategy to address unnecessary repeat testing.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the effectiveness of an implemented MRI protocol for inpatient laboratory testing.
  • To evaluate the impact of MRI on test request reduction, cost savings, and alert management.

Main Methods:

  • Applied MRI for 53 laboratory tests over a one-year period.
  • Calculated test request reduction, cost savings, alert frequency, acceptance, and ignorance rates.
  • Evaluated reasons for MRI violations and departmental contributions.

Main Results:

  • 14.8% of requests violated MRI rules, with a 1.9% reduction in overall tests requested.
  • High-volume tests generated most alerts, with >85% ignorance for some.
  • Tumor markers and autoimmunity tests had high cancellation rates (>50%).
  • Annual charge reduction was 62,641 EUR; reagent savings were 11,408 EUR.
  • Intensive care units showed the most ignored alerts; clinical justification was the primary violation reason.

Conclusions:

  • MRI implementation demonstrated limited effectiveness in reducing testing repetition and financial savings.
  • The protocol provides a foundation for future enhancements in laboratory test management.

Related Concept Videos

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Toxicity Testing in Animals01:23

Toxicity Testing in Animals

Toxicity tests in animals are grounded on two main assumptions: first, the effects observed in laboratory animals can be extrapolated to humans, especially when adjusted for body surface area; second, high-dose exposure in animals is essential to identify potential human hazards from lower doses. This is based on the quantal dose-response concept, which faces the challenge of extrapolating results from relatively few test animals to much larger human populations. For example, a 0.01% incidence...
Automated Microbial Diagnostics01:24

Automated Microbial Diagnostics

Automated diagnostic analyzers have transformed clinical microbiology by providing rapid and reliable methods for pathogen identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Among these systems, the Vitek 2 is widely used because it automates the traditionally labor-intensive processes of microbial identification (ID) and antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST), delivering standardized and timely results that are essential for effective patient care.Microbial Identification with ID CardsThe...