![]() Research A quality management intervention to improve clinical laboratory use in acute myocardial infarction Godfrey Isouard
MJA 1999; 170: 11-14 → Other articles have cited this article Abstract -
Introduction -
Methods -
Results -
Discussion -
Acknowledgements -
References -
Author's details
A number of reports have indicated an excessive use of laboratory
tests in patients admitted to hospital with AMI or other clinical
disorders. One Australian study found that at one hospital up to 20% of
all laboratory tests were unnecessary.4 Another found that there
were three times as many clinical chemistry tests ordered as were
appropriate for patients admitted with chest pain.5 Similarly, a
recent study found inappropriate testing of calcium, phosphate and
magnesium in the emergency department of a United States teaching
hospital.6
The conventional approach to address inappropriate laboratory
testing has been to target doctors through education,7
feedback8 and providing information
on laboratory testing costs.9 Such measures have had
limited success, and in most cases have had limited input from
clinicians.10
I have examined the effect of a total quality management (TQM)
approach (that was developed and introduced by clinicians and other
healthcare professionals) on the appropriateness of clinical
laboratory test use in the management of patients with AMI.
Total quality management refers to the overall approach of managing
the total aspects of an organisation's quality. In my study, this
involves changing the way quality in test use is viewed, focusing on
the customer and including everyone involved in its provision and use
in the process of continuous improvement. The specific TQM model I
used was the FOCUS-PDCA approach to quality improvement (Box
1).11
The study was conducted from March 1993 to August 1995 at two teaching
hospitals in Sydney. Patients at Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital were
designated the "experimental" group, and those at Nepean Hospital
were the "control" group. Only the experimental group was subjected
to the TQM intervention.
At the time of the study, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital was a 454-bed
hospital with 21 724 annual admissions from the Emergency Department
and 2355 admissions to the Coronary Care Unit (CCU). Nepean Hospital
was a 415-bed hospital with 20 485 annual admissions from the
emergency department and 1891 admissions to the CCU.
Within the study groups, two subgroups of AMI patients were
identified: "suspected AMI" and "confirmed AMI".
The suspected AMI group included all patients who were admitted to the
CCU via the emergency department with chest pain and
electrocardiographic (ECG) signs suggesting AMI: these were
greater than 0.1 mV of ST-segment elevation in two or more limb leads or
greater than 0.2 mV in two or more contiguous precordial leads, and the
Minnesota code was used to classify Q-wave changes.12
Not all the cases of suspected AMI did in fact progress to AMI. Patients
were included in the confirmed AMI group if they had a primary
discharge diagnosis in accordance with the World Health
Organization criteria.13 The diagnosis was
confirmed if the patient had at least two of the following three
findings: the presence of a typical history of characteristic chest
pain, new ECG changes of pathological Q waves, and an elevation of
serum CK to 390 U/L or above during the first 72 hours of admission.
Improvement process
A quasi-experimental design involving a pre-intervention and
post-intervention phase with a concurrent control was used to test
the effect of the TQM approach. The study was conducted in two 15-month
stages. The first stage involved the collection of pre-intervention
data. In the second stage the TQM intervention took place.
Using the FOCUS-PDCA TQM model, a multidisciplinary team was
empowered to make the necessary improvements, which were introduced
during the intervention period as they were developed. The team
included representatives from all clinical areas involved in the
process of laboratory testing. These included the Emergency
Department (Director of Emergency, Assistant Director of Nursing,
Clinical Nurse Specialist and Senior Medical Officer), CCU
(Director of Cardiology, Nurse Unit Manager, Clinical Nurse
Specialist), Pathology Department (Director of Pathology, Senior
Technologist), and Administration (Deputy Director of Medical
Services). The hospital's Quality Assurance Officer was appointed
the Quality Advisor for the TQM team.
TQM team meetings were held weekly over the first two months of the
15-month intervention period, and then monthly.
The TQM team established an overall review and improvement of the
total systems and processes involved in test ordering. The team's
mission statement was To ensure that the pathology services used
are appropriate, effective and efficient for supporting clinical
care in AMI.
Practice guidelines were introduced for laboratory testing in the
management of AMI. Clinicians in the team were actively encouraged to
participate in the improvement process. Draft copies of the
guidelines were circulated widely to other clinicians for comment.
Suggestions for change were considered and incorporated into the
guidelines as determined by the team. The guidelines provided
details of all recommended laboratory tests during the 72-hour
period following the admission of a patient with suspected AMI into
hospital.
Strategies were developed for education and training programs,
feedback mechanisms and ongoing monitoring of performance through
data collection and analysis. To implement the changes, the TQM team
assigned responsibility to motivated individuals to accomplish
specified tasks. Progress reports were provided at subsequent
meetings.
Medical staff requesting laboratory tests for suspected AMI
patients were issued with pre-stamped pathology request forms that
listed the recommended tests from the guidelines.
Clinically indicated tests
Requested laboratory tests were designated as "clinically
indicated" if the ordered tests matched those listed in the AMI
practice guidelines devised by the team, or if the tests were
found to be justified when the patient's records were checked by one of
the study's hospital medical officers. Conversely,
"non-clinically indicated" tests were all requested tests found to
be outside the recommendations of the AMI practice guidelines that
could not be justified for inclusion when checked by one of the study's
hospital medical officers.
Data collection and statistical analysis
Once the suspected AMI patients were transferred to the CCU of the
experimental group hospital, an audit was undertaken of the
laboratory tests requested and the time and date of each blood
collection. The data were collected by me in collaboration with the
Senior Technologist of the Pathology Department. The findings on the
appropriateness of test use were reported to the Emergency
Department and CCU staff, and at the team meetings.
For each of the confirmed AMI groups, the number of clinically and
non-clinically indicated tests were retrospectively determined.
Group equivalency between the pre-TQM and post-TQM groups was
determined using the t test. Only the results for the
confirmed AMI groups are presented here.
All data were coded, entered and analysed using SPSS for
Windows.14
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the Ethics Committees of both the South
Western Sydney Area Health Service and the Nepean Health Service.
The proportion of clinically indicated tests that were requested for
the experimental group increased from 77.5% before the TQM
intervention to 88.2% in the intervention period (Box 3). For the
control group, the proportion of clinically indicated tests that
were requested did not change significantly (Box 4A).
For the experimental group, the number of non-clinically indicated
tests per admission was reduced by 81.7% in the intervention period
(Box 4B), whereas for the control group this number did not change
significantly.
Overall, the total number of tests requested at the experimental
hospital was approximately halved in the intervention period,
whereas there was no change at the control hospital (Box 5).
Firstly, the 81.7% reduction of unnecessary tests may provide a
substantial reduction in the overall cost of hospital inpatient
pathology services if the TQM strategies were to be successfully
introduced to more clinical situations. Such potential savings
remain the challenge for future investigations.
Secondly, there was an overall benefit to patient care through the
increased use of clinically indicated laboratory tests. In
addition, although not reported here, there was a statistically
significant improvement to the clinically recommended timing of the
blood collections for cardiac enzyme testing.
I have not been able to find any study published in medical and health
sciences journals during the past 15 years that has used TQM
specifically to improve the appropriateness of clinical laboratory
use in AMI. However, the FOCUS-PDCA model has had widespread and
successful application within the healthcare system.15-16 As the
model is process driven, it is likely to be adaptable to other
test-ordering processes.
My study supports the recent findings by Nardella et al of significant
cost reductions and increased appropriateness of testing through
the use of continuous quality improvement strategies.17 Although
Nardella et al did not specifically use the FOCUS-PDCA model, they
adopted a similar improvement approach. Methodologically,
however, my study provided several strengths, with the inclusion of a
pre-test and a concurrent control group to enable substantial
control over threats to internal and external validity.
The introduction of the TQM intervention was accompanied by
additional staff time spent undertaking activities such as
training, meetings, data collection and analysis. There was also
medical, nursing and clerical staff time saved as a result of the
accompanying improvements to the clerical systems used in test
ordering. Although such costs and benefits were not quantified, I
suspect that any savings made in staffing time were expended in
establishing and maintaining the intervention.
Following the 15-month intervention and the disbandment of the
formal TQM team, the AMI laboratory testing guidelines remain in
operation. However, recent discussions with key personnel from the
original team reveal that the pre-stamped pathology request forms
are no longer in use and that compliance with the testing guidelines
has generally declined. These observations are consistent with
those of other studies where improvements have failed to be sustained
once improvement strategies had been completed.18-19
In view of the important economic and patient care implications,
further investigations should be undertaken on the effects of the TQM
approach in a variety of other clinical laboratory testing
situations.
Reprints will not be available from the author. ©MJA 1998
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||