The impact of selective laboratory evaluation on utilization of laboratory resources and patient care in a level-i trauma center*

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00234-6Get rights and content

Background

Routine laboratory evaluation of preoperative patients has not been shown to be cost effective when a detailed history and physical examination are performed. However, since such a detailed history is not possible in trauma patients, the time-honored approach has been for laboratory evaluation to be protocol driven. The cost-benefit ratio of this practice has never been evaluated.

Methods

Trauma patients who underwent routine laboratory evaluation (n = 552; group I) were compared with patients who had laboratory evaluation based on clinical need (n = 603; group II). A concurrent review of each case in group II was conducted every day while a retrospective review of charts was conducted for patients in group I to determine patient care issues and identify abnormal trauma center test results.

Results

The number of patients with laboratory tests decreased from 97% in group I to 27% in group II (P < 0.0001). Positive chemistry profiles increased (55% versus 92%; P < 0.0001) as did coagulation profiles (8% versus 33%; P < 0.0001). There were no differences in the percentage of patients receiving intervention based on laboratory data (7% in group I versus 8% in group II). No adverse effect on patient care was identified as a result of absent laboratory information in group II. Mortality, length of stay, and intensive care unit days were statistically unchanged. There was an annualized savings of $1.5 million in billed trauma center laboratory charges in group II.

Conclusion

Selective laboratory evaluation of trauma patients can greatly reduce medical cost and does not adversely affect care.

References (17)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (37)

  • Anesthesia for the Pediatric Trauma Patient

    2016, Smith's Anesthesia for Infants and Children, Ninth Edition
  • A clinician's perspective on laboratory utilization management

    2014, Clinica Chimica Acta
    Citation Excerpt :

    These authors estimate that selective lab ordering in trauma patients would save their institution over $1.5 million per year [16]. Other trauma studies have also shown that thoughtful and directed lab utilization can lead to significant savings without negatively affecting patient outcomes [13,17]. There are many factors which influence ordering behavior, including: ease of ordering, ignorance of test characteristics, peer- or supervisor-pressure to be extremely thorough, fear of litigation, impatience, desire for certainty of diagnosis, financial incentives, and patient demand [9].

  • Provider perceptions concerning use of chest x-ray studies in adult blunt trauma assessments

    2012, Journal of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, when providers estimated a < 10% likelihood of finding any significant injuries on CXR, 2.1% (95% CI 1.0–4.1%) of patients had SITI; when they predicted a 10–25% likelihood, 5.7% (95% CI 1.2–15.7%) of patients had SITI; and when they predicted a > 25% likelihood, 9.1% (95% CI 3.0–20.0%) had SITI. In several studies assessing the indiscriminate use of “routine trauma panels,” investigators have concluded that the use of such panels has low clinical yield and does not lead to better outcomes (9–12). Nonetheless, automatic ordering of certain tests in trauma evaluation and other settings continues.

  • Infants and Children as Accident Victims and Their Emergency Management

    2012, Pediatric Surgery, 2-Volume Set: Expert Consult - Online and Print
  • Blunt Abdominal Trauma

    2012, Emergency Medicine: Clinical Essentials, SECOND EDITION
View all citing articles on Scopus
*

Presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Surgical Congress, Scottsdale, Arizona, April 28–May 1, 1996.

1

Frederick W. Clevenger, MD, is deceased.

View full text