Affiliations
Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Given name(s)
Peter M.
Family name
Yarbrough
Degrees
MD

Multifaceted Intervention Reduces Cost

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 05/15/2017 - 22:22
Display Headline
Multifaceted intervention including education, rounding checklist implementation, cost feedback, and financial incentives reduces inpatient laboratory costs

Healthcare costs continue to increase and are estimated to be approximately $3.1 trillion per year in the United States.[1] Waste is a major contributor to this cost, accounting for an estimated $910 billion/year.[2] Laboratory tests are well documented to contribute to healthcare waste, with an estimated 30% to 50% of tests for hospitalized patients being unnecessary.[3, 4, 5] This issue has been highlighted by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign as an area to reduce waste.[6] Evaluating this concern locally, a University Health Systems Consortium 2011 analysis indicated that the University of Utah general internal medicine hospitalist service had a higher average direct lab cost per discharge compared to top performers, indicating an opportunity for improvement.

Multiple interventions have been described in the literature to address excessive laboratory utilization, including physician education, audit and feedback, cost information display, and administrative rules restricting certain types of ordering.[7, 8, 9, 10, 11] Despite these interventions, barriers remain common and not all interventions are sustained. For example, interventions focused mainly on education see a small improvement initially that is not sustained.[4, 12, 13] Additionally, although most studies focus on individual interventions, those that target multiple factors have been found to be more successful at producing and sustaining change.[14] Therefore, the opportunity existed to incorporate multiple etiologies into a single intervention and apply a checklist to laboratory ordering to see if combined modalities could be effective at reducing laboratory costs in a sustainable manner.

In addition to cost, there is potential patient harm resulting from unnecessary laboratory testing. For prolonged hospitalizations, anemia is a well‐recognized side effect of phlebotomy,[15, 16] and a recent evaluation of cardiac surgery patients found an average cumulative blood loss due to phlebotomy of 454 mL/hospital stay.[17] The sheer number of tests ordered can lead to false positive tests that result in additional testing and monitoring. Furthermore, patients subjected to laboratory blood draws are often awakened early in the morning, which is unpleasant and could adversely affect the patient experience.

Recognizing laboratory cost as a problem, the University of Utah general internal medicine hospitalist service implemented a multifaceted quality‐improvement initiative with a goal to reduce laboratory testing. At the time of this project, University of Utah Health Care (UUHC) developed a Value Driven Outcomes (VDO) tool to give direct data related to costs of care, including the actual cost paid by the hospital to the university‐owned laboratory vendor (ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT) for testing.[18] The hospitalist group incorporated VDO into the initiative for routine cost feedback. This study evaluates the impact of this intervention on laboratory costs.

METHODS

Design

A retrospective, controlled, interrupted time series (ITS) study was performed to compare changes in lab costs between hospitalists (intervention study group) and other providers (control study group). The intervention initiation date was February 1, 2013. The baseline period was July 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013, as that was the period in which the VDO tool became available for cost analysis prior to intervention. The intervention period was February 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014, as there was a change in the electronic health record (EHR) in May 2014 that affected data flow and could act as a major confounder. The institutional review board classified this project as quality improvement and did not require review and oversight.

Setting

UUHC is a 500‐bed academic medical center in Salt Lake City, Utah. The hospitalist service is a teaching service composed of 4 teams with internal medicine residents and medical students. The nonhospitalist services include all surgical services, as well as pulmonary, cardiology, hematology, and oncology services on which internal medicine residents rotate. All services at UUHC are staffed by academic physicians affiliated with the University of Utah School of Medicine.

Population

All patients 18 years and older admitted to the hospital to a service other than obstetrics, rehabilitation, or psychiatry between July 1, 2012 and April 30, 2014 were evaluated. Patients with missing data for outcomes or covariates were excluded.

Intervention

Initial evaluation included an informal review of patient charts and discussion with hospitalist group members, both indicating laboratory overuse. A working group was then established including hospitalists and process engineers to evaluate the workflow by which laboratory tests were ordered. Concurrently, a literature review was performed to help identify the scope of the problem and evaluate methods that had been successful at other institutions. Through this review, it was noted that interns were the most frequent orderers of tests and the largest contributors to variation of testing for inpatients.[19] Two specific studies with direct applicability to this project demonstrated that discussion of costs with attendings in a trauma intensive care unit resulted in a 30% reduction of tests ordered,[20] and discussion of testing with a senior resident in an internal medicine inpatient setting demonstrated a 20% reduction in laboratory testing.[21]

Our laboratory reduction intervention expanded on the current literature to incorporate education, process change, cost feedback, and financial incentives. Specifically, starting February 1, 2013, the following interventions were performed:

  1. Education of all providers involved, including the hospitalist group and all internal medicine residents at the start of their rotation with the hospitalist service. Education included a 30‐minute discussion of laboratory overuse, costs associated with laboratory overuse, previous interventions and their success, and current intervention with goals. Each resident was provided a pocket card with the most common lab tests and associated charges. Charges were used instead of costs due to concerns regarding the possible public dissemination of institutional costs.
  2. Standardization of the rounding process including a checklist review (see Supporting Information, Appendix, in the online version of this article) for all patients that ensured discussion of labs, telemetry, pain, lines/tubes, nursing presence, and follow‐up needed. The expectation was that all plans for lab testing would be discussed during rounds. The third‐year medical student was responsible to ensure that all items were covered daily on each patient.
  3. Monthly feedback at the hospitalist group meeting regarding laboratory costs using the VDO tool. Data were presented as a monthly group average and compared to preintervention baseline costs. Individual performance could be viewed and compared to other providers within the group.
  4. Financial incentive through a program that shares 50% of cost savings realized by the hospital with the Division of General Internal Medicine. The incentive could be used to support future quality‐improvement projects, but there was no individual physician incentive.

 

Data Collection and Preparation

Clinical data were collected in the inpatient EHR (Cerner Corp., Kansas City, MO) and later imported into the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) as part of the normal data flow. Billing data were imported into the EDW from the billing system. Cost data were estimated using the VDO tool developed by the University of Utah to identify clinical costs to the UUHC system.[18]

Clinical and Cost Outcomes

We hypothesized that following the intervention, the number of tests and lab costs would decrease greater for patients in the intervention group than in the control group, with no adverse effect on length of stay (LOS) or 30‐day readmissions.

Lab cost per day was calculated as the total lab cost per visit divided by the LOS. We adjusted all lab costs to 2013 US dollars using Consumer Price Index inflation data.[22] To account for different LOS, we used LOS as a weight variable when estimating descriptive characteristics and P values for lab cost per day and the number of tests. Thirty‐day readmissions included inpatient encounters followed by another inpatient encounter within 30 days excluding obstetrics, rehabilitation, and psychiatry visits.

Descriptive Variables

We included information on age at admission in years and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to evaluate differences in control and intervention groups.[23]

Statistical Analysis

First, unadjusted descriptive statistics were calculated for study outcomes and visit characteristics. Descriptive statistics were expressed as n (%) and mean standard deviation. Simple comparisons were performed based on 2 tests of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t tests for continuous variables.

Second, an ITS analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention while accounting for baseline trends.[24] In this analysis, the dependent variable (yt) was the difference in aggregated outcome measures between the intervention and control groups every 2 weeks (eg, difference in average lab costs in a given 2‐week period between the 2 groups). Intervention impact was then evaluated in terms of changes in the level of the outcome (b2) as well as in the trend over time (b3) compared to the initial difference in means (b0) and baseline trend (b1). The following difference‐in‐differences segmented regression model was fitted using the autoreg procedure in SAS: yt = b0 + b1*timet + b2*study periodt + b3*time after the interventiont + errort, where timet is biweekly intervals after the beginning of the study, time after the interventiont is biweekly intervals after the intervention date, and study periodt is 1 postintervention and 0 preintervention. The models were fitted using maximum likelihood and stepwise autoregression to test 24 lags.

P values <0.05 were considered significant. SAS (version 9.3; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 48,327 inpatient visits that met inclusion criteria. We excluded 15,659 obstetrics, rehabilitation, and psychiatry visits. Seven hundred seventy‐two (2.4%) of the remaining visits were excluded due to missing data. A total of 31,896 inpatient visits by 22,545 patients were included in the analysis. There were 10,136 visits before the intervention and 21,760 visits after. Characteristics of the study groups for the full study timeframe (July 1, 2012April 30, 2014) are summarized in Table 1.

Study Group Characteristics for Full Study Timeframe
CharacteristicStudy Group*
Overall, N = 31,896Control, N = 25,586Intervention, N = 6,310P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t test for continuous variables.

Patient characteristics    
Age, y55.47 17.6155.27 17.1356.30 19.39<0.001
Female gender14,995 (47%)11,753 (46%)3,242 (51%)<0.001
CCI3.73 3.253.61 3.174.20 3.54<0.001
Outcomes    
Cost per day, $130.95 392.16131.57 423.94127.68 220.400.022
Cost per visit, $733.75 1,693.98772.30 1,847.65577.40 795.29<0.001
BMP tests per day0.73 1.170.74 1.190.67 1.05<0.001
CMP tests per day0.20 0.670.19 0.680.26 0.62<0.001
CBC tests per day0.83 1.100.84 1.150.73 0.82<0.001
PT/INR tests per day0.36 1.030.36 1.070.34 0.83<.001
LOS, d5.60 7.125.87 7.554.52 4.82<0.001
30‐day readmissions4,374 (14%)3,603 (14%)771 (12%)<0.001

During the study period, there were 25,586 visits in the control group and 6310 visits in the intervention group. Patients in the intervention group were on average older than patients in the control group. There were more female patients in the intervention group. Mean CCI was 4.2 in the intervention group and 3.6 in the control group. The intervention group had lower LOS and 30‐day readmissions than the control group.

Descriptive statistics and simple comparisons of covariates and outcomes before and after the intervention are shown in Table 2. Age and gender distributions remained unchanged in both groups. CCI increased in the control group by 0.24 (P < 0.001) and remained unchanged in the intervention group. In the intervention group, lab cost per day was reduced from $138 before the intervention to $123 after the intervention (P < 0.001). In contrast, among control patients, cost per day increased nonsignificantly from $130 preintervention to $132 postintervention (P = 0.37). Number of tests per day significantly decreased for all specific tests in the intervention group. Readmission rates decreased significantly from 14% to 11% in the intervention group (P = 0.01). LOS remained constant in both groups.

Outcomes Pre‐/Postintervention by Study Group
Characteristic*ControlIntervention
Preintervention, N = 8,102Postintervention, N = 17,484P ValuePreintervention, N = 2,034Postintervention, N = 4,276P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t test for continuous variables.

Patient characteristics      
Age, yr55.17 17.4655.31 16.980.5555.90 19.4756.50 19.350.25
Female gender3,707 (46%)8,046 (46%)0.691,039 (51%)2,203 (52%)0.74
CCI3.45 3.063.69 3.21<0.0014.19 3.514.20 3.560.89
Outcomes      
Cost per day, $130.1 431.8132.2 420.30.37137.9 232.9122.9 213.5<0.001
Cost per visit, $760.4 1,813.6777.8 1,863.30.48617.8 844.1558.2 770.30.005
BMP tests per day0.74 1.210.74 1.180.670.75 1.030.63 1.05<0.001
CMP tests per day0.19 0.680.19 0.680.850.32 0.680.23 0.58<0.001
CBC tests per day0.85 1.140.84 1.150.0450.92 0.790.64 0.76<0.001
PT/INR tests per day0.34 1.040.37 1.08<0.0010.35 0.820.33 0.840.020
LOS, d5.84 7.665.88 7.500.714.48 5.124.54 4.670.63
30‐day readmissions1,173 (14%)2,430 (14%)0.22280 (14%)491 (11%)0.010

ITS analysis results are shown in Table 3. After the intervention, the difference in monthly means between the 2 groups dropped by $16 for cost per day (P = 0.034) and by $128 for cost per visit (P = 0.02). The decreased cost in the intervention group amounts to approximately $251,427 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $20,370‐$482,484) savings over the first year. If the intervention was rolled out for the control group and had a similar impact, it could have led to an additional cost savings of $1,321,669 (95% CI: 107,081‐2,536,256). Moreover, the number of basic metabolic panel, comprehensive metabolic panel, and complete blood count test per day were reduced significantly more in the intervention group compared to the control group (<0.001, 0.004, and <0.001).

Parameter Estimates and P Values from Difference‐in‐Differences Models
OutcomeParameter*Parameter EstimateStandard Errort ValuePr > |t|
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Parameter estimates are based on difference‐in‐differences segmented regression models.

Lab cost per day ($)Baseline difference level (b0)9.34506.56401.42370.16
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.21500.77090.27890.78
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)16.12007.32972.19930.034
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.23880.80900.29520.77
Lab cost per visit ($)Baseline difference level (b0)166.08148.34253.43550.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)3.66635.85710.62600.53
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)128.52753.02782.42380.020
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)2.25865.84630.38630.70
BMP tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.00610.02500.24390.81
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00040.00300.14490.89
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.10340.02763.7426<0.001
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00140.00300.45880.65
CMP tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.12260.02265.4302<0.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00150.00280.55390.58
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.07540.02483.03970.004
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00300.00281.09370.28
CBC tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.05390.01902.83380.007
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00130.00230.55940.58
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.23430.021310.997<0.001
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00360.00231.55390.13
PT/INR tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.04130.02421.70630.096
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00400.00281.40950.17
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.05000.02701.85070.072
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00540.00301.79400.080
LOS, dBaseline difference level (b0)1.42110.27465.1743<0.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00930.03330.28070.78
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.10070.29880.33680.74
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00530.03310.15880.87
30‐day readmissionsBaseline difference level (b0)0.00570.01850.30840.76
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00170.00220.80160.43
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.01100.02060.53150.60
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00210.00230.91110.37

Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the biweekly means for the 2 primary outcomeslab cost per day and lab cost per visit. Figure 2 shows all other outcomes. To the right of each figure, P values are provided for the b2 coefficients from Table 3.

Figure 1
Lab cost per day and per visit.
Figure 2
Secondary outcomes: tests per day, LOS, and readmissions. Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time.

DISCUSSION

Through a multifaceted quality‐improvement initiative, the UUHC hospitalist group was able to reduce lab cost per day and per visit as well as commonly ordered routine labs as compared to an institutional control group. A multifaceted approach was selected given the literature supporting this approach as the most likely method to sustain improvement.[14] At the same time, the use of a multifaceted intervention makes it difficult to rigorously determine the relative impact of different components of the intervention. In discussing this issue, however, the hospitalist group felt that the driving factors for change were those related to process change, specifically, the use of a standardized rounding checklist to discuss lab testing and the routine review of lab costs at group meetings. The ultimate goal was to change the culture of routine test ordering into a thoughtful process of needed tests and thereby reduce costs. Prior to this intervention, the least experienced person on this team (the intern) ordered any test he or she wanted, usually without discussion. The intervention focused on this issue through standardized supervision and explicit discussion of laboratory tests. Importantly, although improvements from education initiatives typically decrease over time, the incorporation of process change in this intervention was felt to likely contribute to the sustained reduction seen at 15 months. Although use of the rounding checklist added another step to daily rounds, the routine cost feedback, including comparisons to peers, helped encourage use of the checklist. Thus, we feel that routine feedback was essential to sustaining the intervention and its impact.

Inappropriate and unnecessary testing has been recognized for decades, and multiple interventions have been attempted, including a recent article that demonstrated a 10% reduction in common laboratory ordering through an initiative mainly focused on education and ordering feedback.[25] Despite reported success of several interventions, none have combined multiple interventions and explicitly required discussion of laboratory tests on rounds. For example, although the UUHC intervention used Attali et al.[21] and Barie and Hydo's[20] work to develop the intervention, neither of these studies described how laboratory testing was discussed with the attending or supervising resident. The UUHC intervention thus builds on the current literature by combining other successful modalities with explicit discussion of laboratory testing via a rounding checklist and feedback with the novel VDO tool to reduce laboratory costs. A major strength of this intervention is the relatively low cost and the generalizability of implementing rounding checklists. Initial support from the hospital was needed to provide accurate VDO information to the hospitalist group. However, ongoing costs were minimal and related to any additional time spent during rounds to discuss laboratory tests. Thus, we feel that this intervention is feasible for wide replication.

Another strength of the study is the use of the VDO tool to measure actual costs. Whereas previous studies have relied on estimated costs with extrapolation to potential cost savings, this study used direct costs to the institution as a more accurate marker of cost savings. Additionally, most studies on lab utilization have used a before/after analysis without a control group. The presence of a control group for this analysis is important to help assess for institutional trends that may not be reflected in a before/after intervention. The reduction in cost in the intervention group despite a trend toward increased cost in the institutional control group supports the impact of this intervention.

Limitations of this study include that it was a single‐center, controlled ITS study and not a randomized controlled trial. Related to this limitation, the control group reflected a different patient population compared to the intervention group, with a longer LOS, lower CCI, and inclusion of nonmedical patients. However, these differences were relatively stable before and after the intervention. Also, ITS is considered one of the most robust research designs outside of randomized controlled trials, and it accounts for baseline differences in both levels and trends.[24] Nevertheless, it remains possible that secular trends existed that we did not capture and that affected the 2 populations differently.

A further limitation is that the baseline period was only 7 months and the intervention was 15 months. As the 7 months started in July, this could have reflected the time when interns were least experienced with ordering. Unfortunately, we did not have VDO availability for a full year prior to the intervention. We believe that any major effect due to this shortened baseline period should have been seen in the control group as well, and therefore accounted for in the analysis. Additionally, it is possible that there was spillover of the intervention to the control group, as internal medicine residents rotated throughout the hospital to other medical services (pulmonary, cardiology, hematology, and oncology). However, any effect of their rotation should have been to lower the control lab cost, thus making differences less profound.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted approach to laboratory reduction through education, process change, cost feedback, and financial incentive resulted in a significant reduction in laboratory cost per day, laboratory cost per visit, and the ordering of common laboratory tests at a major academic medical center.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Michael Swanicke for his assistance in process engineering, Mr. Tony Clawson for his routine provision of VDO data, and Ms. Selma Lopez for her editorial support.

Disclosures: K.K. is or has been a consultant on clinical decision support (CDS) or electronic clinical quality measurement to the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, ARUP Laboratories, McKesson InterQual, ESAC, Inc., JBS International, Inc., Inflexxion, Inc., Intelligent Automation, Inc., Partners HealthCare, Mayo Clinic, and the RAND Corporation. K.K. receives royalties for a Duke University‐owned CDS technology for infectious disease management known as CustomID that he helped develop. K.K. was formerly a consultant for Religent, Inc. and a co‐owner and consultant for Clinica Software, Inc., both of which provide commercial CDS services, including through use of a CDS technology known as SEBASTIAN that K.K. developed. K.K. no longer has a financial relationship with either Religent or Clinica Software. K.K. has no competing interest with any specific product or intervention evaluated in this article. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Files
References
  1. Keehan SP, Cuckler GA, Sisko AM, et al. National health expenditure projections, 2014–24: spending growth faster than recent trends. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(8):14071417.
  2. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):15131516.
  3. Melanson SE, Szymanski T, Rogers SO, et al. Utilization of arterial blood gas measurements in a large tertiary care hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:604609.
  4. Hindmarsh JT, Lyon AW. Strategies to promote rational clinical chemistry test utilization. Clin Biochem. 1996;29:291299.
  5. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen‐Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15‐year meta‐analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78962.
  6. ABIM Choosing Wisely Society of Hospital Medicine–Adult Hospital Medicine. Five things physicians and patients should question. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/societies/society‐of‐hospital‐medicine‐adult. Published February 21, 2013. Accessed September 2, 2015.
  7. Pugh JA, Frazier LM, DeLong E, Wallace AG, Ellenbogen P, Linfors E. Effect of daily charge feedback on inpatient charges and physician knowledge and behavior. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:426429.
  8. Wang TJ, Mort EA, Nordberg P, et al. A utilization management intervention to reduce unnecessary testing in the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:18851890.
  9. Neilson EG, Johnson KB, Rosenbloom ST, et al. The impact of peer management on test‐ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:196204.
  10. Calderon‐Margalit R, Mor‐Yosef S, Mayer M, Adler B, Shapira SC. An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:243248.
  11. Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):903908.
  12. Schroeder SA, Myers LP, McPhee SJ, et al. The failure of physician education as a cost containment strategy. JAMA. 1984;252:225230.
  13. Catrou PG. Is that lab test necessary? Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:335336.
  14. Solomon AD, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH. Techniques to improve physicians' use of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1998;280:20202027.
  15. Ezzie ME, Aberegg SK, O'Brien JM. Laboratory testing in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin. 2007;23:435465.
  16. Woodhouse S. Complications of critical care: lab testing and iatrogenic anemia. MLO Med Lab Obs. 200;33(10):2831.
  17. Koch CG, Reineks EZ, Tang AS, et al. Contemporary bloodletting in cardiac surgical care. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:779785.
  18. Kawamoto K, Martin CJ, Williams K, et al. Value Driven Outcomes (VDO): a pragmatic, modular, and extensible software framework for understanding and improving health care costs and outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015:22:223235.
  19. Iwashyna TJ, Fuld A, Asch DA. The impact of residents, interns, and attendings on inpatient laboratory ordering patterns: a report from one university's hospitalist service. Acad Med. 2011;86:139145.
  20. Barie PS, Hydo LJ. Learning to not know: results of a program for ancillary cost reduction in surgical care. J Trauma. 1996;41:714720.
  21. Attali M, Barel Y, Somin M, et al. A cost‐effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university‐associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73:787794.
  22. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI inflation calculator. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed May 22, 2015.
  23. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1131139.
  24. Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross‐Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27(4):299309.
  25. Corson AH, Fan VS, White T, et al. A multifaceted hospitalist quality improvement intervention: decreased frequency of common labs. J Hosp Med. 2015;10:390395.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(5)
Publications
Page Number
348-354
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Healthcare costs continue to increase and are estimated to be approximately $3.1 trillion per year in the United States.[1] Waste is a major contributor to this cost, accounting for an estimated $910 billion/year.[2] Laboratory tests are well documented to contribute to healthcare waste, with an estimated 30% to 50% of tests for hospitalized patients being unnecessary.[3, 4, 5] This issue has been highlighted by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign as an area to reduce waste.[6] Evaluating this concern locally, a University Health Systems Consortium 2011 analysis indicated that the University of Utah general internal medicine hospitalist service had a higher average direct lab cost per discharge compared to top performers, indicating an opportunity for improvement.

Multiple interventions have been described in the literature to address excessive laboratory utilization, including physician education, audit and feedback, cost information display, and administrative rules restricting certain types of ordering.[7, 8, 9, 10, 11] Despite these interventions, barriers remain common and not all interventions are sustained. For example, interventions focused mainly on education see a small improvement initially that is not sustained.[4, 12, 13] Additionally, although most studies focus on individual interventions, those that target multiple factors have been found to be more successful at producing and sustaining change.[14] Therefore, the opportunity existed to incorporate multiple etiologies into a single intervention and apply a checklist to laboratory ordering to see if combined modalities could be effective at reducing laboratory costs in a sustainable manner.

In addition to cost, there is potential patient harm resulting from unnecessary laboratory testing. For prolonged hospitalizations, anemia is a well‐recognized side effect of phlebotomy,[15, 16] and a recent evaluation of cardiac surgery patients found an average cumulative blood loss due to phlebotomy of 454 mL/hospital stay.[17] The sheer number of tests ordered can lead to false positive tests that result in additional testing and monitoring. Furthermore, patients subjected to laboratory blood draws are often awakened early in the morning, which is unpleasant and could adversely affect the patient experience.

Recognizing laboratory cost as a problem, the University of Utah general internal medicine hospitalist service implemented a multifaceted quality‐improvement initiative with a goal to reduce laboratory testing. At the time of this project, University of Utah Health Care (UUHC) developed a Value Driven Outcomes (VDO) tool to give direct data related to costs of care, including the actual cost paid by the hospital to the university‐owned laboratory vendor (ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT) for testing.[18] The hospitalist group incorporated VDO into the initiative for routine cost feedback. This study evaluates the impact of this intervention on laboratory costs.

METHODS

Design

A retrospective, controlled, interrupted time series (ITS) study was performed to compare changes in lab costs between hospitalists (intervention study group) and other providers (control study group). The intervention initiation date was February 1, 2013. The baseline period was July 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013, as that was the period in which the VDO tool became available for cost analysis prior to intervention. The intervention period was February 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014, as there was a change in the electronic health record (EHR) in May 2014 that affected data flow and could act as a major confounder. The institutional review board classified this project as quality improvement and did not require review and oversight.

Setting

UUHC is a 500‐bed academic medical center in Salt Lake City, Utah. The hospitalist service is a teaching service composed of 4 teams with internal medicine residents and medical students. The nonhospitalist services include all surgical services, as well as pulmonary, cardiology, hematology, and oncology services on which internal medicine residents rotate. All services at UUHC are staffed by academic physicians affiliated with the University of Utah School of Medicine.

Population

All patients 18 years and older admitted to the hospital to a service other than obstetrics, rehabilitation, or psychiatry between July 1, 2012 and April 30, 2014 were evaluated. Patients with missing data for outcomes or covariates were excluded.

Intervention

Initial evaluation included an informal review of patient charts and discussion with hospitalist group members, both indicating laboratory overuse. A working group was then established including hospitalists and process engineers to evaluate the workflow by which laboratory tests were ordered. Concurrently, a literature review was performed to help identify the scope of the problem and evaluate methods that had been successful at other institutions. Through this review, it was noted that interns were the most frequent orderers of tests and the largest contributors to variation of testing for inpatients.[19] Two specific studies with direct applicability to this project demonstrated that discussion of costs with attendings in a trauma intensive care unit resulted in a 30% reduction of tests ordered,[20] and discussion of testing with a senior resident in an internal medicine inpatient setting demonstrated a 20% reduction in laboratory testing.[21]

Our laboratory reduction intervention expanded on the current literature to incorporate education, process change, cost feedback, and financial incentives. Specifically, starting February 1, 2013, the following interventions were performed:

  1. Education of all providers involved, including the hospitalist group and all internal medicine residents at the start of their rotation with the hospitalist service. Education included a 30‐minute discussion of laboratory overuse, costs associated with laboratory overuse, previous interventions and their success, and current intervention with goals. Each resident was provided a pocket card with the most common lab tests and associated charges. Charges were used instead of costs due to concerns regarding the possible public dissemination of institutional costs.
  2. Standardization of the rounding process including a checklist review (see Supporting Information, Appendix, in the online version of this article) for all patients that ensured discussion of labs, telemetry, pain, lines/tubes, nursing presence, and follow‐up needed. The expectation was that all plans for lab testing would be discussed during rounds. The third‐year medical student was responsible to ensure that all items were covered daily on each patient.
  3. Monthly feedback at the hospitalist group meeting regarding laboratory costs using the VDO tool. Data were presented as a monthly group average and compared to preintervention baseline costs. Individual performance could be viewed and compared to other providers within the group.
  4. Financial incentive through a program that shares 50% of cost savings realized by the hospital with the Division of General Internal Medicine. The incentive could be used to support future quality‐improvement projects, but there was no individual physician incentive.

 

Data Collection and Preparation

Clinical data were collected in the inpatient EHR (Cerner Corp., Kansas City, MO) and later imported into the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) as part of the normal data flow. Billing data were imported into the EDW from the billing system. Cost data were estimated using the VDO tool developed by the University of Utah to identify clinical costs to the UUHC system.[18]

Clinical and Cost Outcomes

We hypothesized that following the intervention, the number of tests and lab costs would decrease greater for patients in the intervention group than in the control group, with no adverse effect on length of stay (LOS) or 30‐day readmissions.

Lab cost per day was calculated as the total lab cost per visit divided by the LOS. We adjusted all lab costs to 2013 US dollars using Consumer Price Index inflation data.[22] To account for different LOS, we used LOS as a weight variable when estimating descriptive characteristics and P values for lab cost per day and the number of tests. Thirty‐day readmissions included inpatient encounters followed by another inpatient encounter within 30 days excluding obstetrics, rehabilitation, and psychiatry visits.

Descriptive Variables

We included information on age at admission in years and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to evaluate differences in control and intervention groups.[23]

Statistical Analysis

First, unadjusted descriptive statistics were calculated for study outcomes and visit characteristics. Descriptive statistics were expressed as n (%) and mean standard deviation. Simple comparisons were performed based on 2 tests of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t tests for continuous variables.

Second, an ITS analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention while accounting for baseline trends.[24] In this analysis, the dependent variable (yt) was the difference in aggregated outcome measures between the intervention and control groups every 2 weeks (eg, difference in average lab costs in a given 2‐week period between the 2 groups). Intervention impact was then evaluated in terms of changes in the level of the outcome (b2) as well as in the trend over time (b3) compared to the initial difference in means (b0) and baseline trend (b1). The following difference‐in‐differences segmented regression model was fitted using the autoreg procedure in SAS: yt = b0 + b1*timet + b2*study periodt + b3*time after the interventiont + errort, where timet is biweekly intervals after the beginning of the study, time after the interventiont is biweekly intervals after the intervention date, and study periodt is 1 postintervention and 0 preintervention. The models were fitted using maximum likelihood and stepwise autoregression to test 24 lags.

P values <0.05 were considered significant. SAS (version 9.3; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 48,327 inpatient visits that met inclusion criteria. We excluded 15,659 obstetrics, rehabilitation, and psychiatry visits. Seven hundred seventy‐two (2.4%) of the remaining visits were excluded due to missing data. A total of 31,896 inpatient visits by 22,545 patients were included in the analysis. There were 10,136 visits before the intervention and 21,760 visits after. Characteristics of the study groups for the full study timeframe (July 1, 2012April 30, 2014) are summarized in Table 1.

Study Group Characteristics for Full Study Timeframe
CharacteristicStudy Group*
Overall, N = 31,896Control, N = 25,586Intervention, N = 6,310P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t test for continuous variables.

Patient characteristics    
Age, y55.47 17.6155.27 17.1356.30 19.39<0.001
Female gender14,995 (47%)11,753 (46%)3,242 (51%)<0.001
CCI3.73 3.253.61 3.174.20 3.54<0.001
Outcomes    
Cost per day, $130.95 392.16131.57 423.94127.68 220.400.022
Cost per visit, $733.75 1,693.98772.30 1,847.65577.40 795.29<0.001
BMP tests per day0.73 1.170.74 1.190.67 1.05<0.001
CMP tests per day0.20 0.670.19 0.680.26 0.62<0.001
CBC tests per day0.83 1.100.84 1.150.73 0.82<0.001
PT/INR tests per day0.36 1.030.36 1.070.34 0.83<.001
LOS, d5.60 7.125.87 7.554.52 4.82<0.001
30‐day readmissions4,374 (14%)3,603 (14%)771 (12%)<0.001

During the study period, there were 25,586 visits in the control group and 6310 visits in the intervention group. Patients in the intervention group were on average older than patients in the control group. There were more female patients in the intervention group. Mean CCI was 4.2 in the intervention group and 3.6 in the control group. The intervention group had lower LOS and 30‐day readmissions than the control group.

Descriptive statistics and simple comparisons of covariates and outcomes before and after the intervention are shown in Table 2. Age and gender distributions remained unchanged in both groups. CCI increased in the control group by 0.24 (P < 0.001) and remained unchanged in the intervention group. In the intervention group, lab cost per day was reduced from $138 before the intervention to $123 after the intervention (P < 0.001). In contrast, among control patients, cost per day increased nonsignificantly from $130 preintervention to $132 postintervention (P = 0.37). Number of tests per day significantly decreased for all specific tests in the intervention group. Readmission rates decreased significantly from 14% to 11% in the intervention group (P = 0.01). LOS remained constant in both groups.

Outcomes Pre‐/Postintervention by Study Group
Characteristic*ControlIntervention
Preintervention, N = 8,102Postintervention, N = 17,484P ValuePreintervention, N = 2,034Postintervention, N = 4,276P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t test for continuous variables.

Patient characteristics      
Age, yr55.17 17.4655.31 16.980.5555.90 19.4756.50 19.350.25
Female gender3,707 (46%)8,046 (46%)0.691,039 (51%)2,203 (52%)0.74
CCI3.45 3.063.69 3.21<0.0014.19 3.514.20 3.560.89
Outcomes      
Cost per day, $130.1 431.8132.2 420.30.37137.9 232.9122.9 213.5<0.001
Cost per visit, $760.4 1,813.6777.8 1,863.30.48617.8 844.1558.2 770.30.005
BMP tests per day0.74 1.210.74 1.180.670.75 1.030.63 1.05<0.001
CMP tests per day0.19 0.680.19 0.680.850.32 0.680.23 0.58<0.001
CBC tests per day0.85 1.140.84 1.150.0450.92 0.790.64 0.76<0.001
PT/INR tests per day0.34 1.040.37 1.08<0.0010.35 0.820.33 0.840.020
LOS, d5.84 7.665.88 7.500.714.48 5.124.54 4.670.63
30‐day readmissions1,173 (14%)2,430 (14%)0.22280 (14%)491 (11%)0.010

ITS analysis results are shown in Table 3. After the intervention, the difference in monthly means between the 2 groups dropped by $16 for cost per day (P = 0.034) and by $128 for cost per visit (P = 0.02). The decreased cost in the intervention group amounts to approximately $251,427 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $20,370‐$482,484) savings over the first year. If the intervention was rolled out for the control group and had a similar impact, it could have led to an additional cost savings of $1,321,669 (95% CI: 107,081‐2,536,256). Moreover, the number of basic metabolic panel, comprehensive metabolic panel, and complete blood count test per day were reduced significantly more in the intervention group compared to the control group (<0.001, 0.004, and <0.001).

Parameter Estimates and P Values from Difference‐in‐Differences Models
OutcomeParameter*Parameter EstimateStandard Errort ValuePr > |t|
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Parameter estimates are based on difference‐in‐differences segmented regression models.

Lab cost per day ($)Baseline difference level (b0)9.34506.56401.42370.16
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.21500.77090.27890.78
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)16.12007.32972.19930.034
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.23880.80900.29520.77
Lab cost per visit ($)Baseline difference level (b0)166.08148.34253.43550.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)3.66635.85710.62600.53
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)128.52753.02782.42380.020
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)2.25865.84630.38630.70
BMP tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.00610.02500.24390.81
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00040.00300.14490.89
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.10340.02763.7426<0.001
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00140.00300.45880.65
CMP tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.12260.02265.4302<0.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00150.00280.55390.58
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.07540.02483.03970.004
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00300.00281.09370.28
CBC tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.05390.01902.83380.007
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00130.00230.55940.58
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.23430.021310.997<0.001
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00360.00231.55390.13
PT/INR tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.04130.02421.70630.096
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00400.00281.40950.17
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.05000.02701.85070.072
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00540.00301.79400.080
LOS, dBaseline difference level (b0)1.42110.27465.1743<0.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00930.03330.28070.78
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.10070.29880.33680.74
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00530.03310.15880.87
30‐day readmissionsBaseline difference level (b0)0.00570.01850.30840.76
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00170.00220.80160.43
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.01100.02060.53150.60
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00210.00230.91110.37

Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the biweekly means for the 2 primary outcomeslab cost per day and lab cost per visit. Figure 2 shows all other outcomes. To the right of each figure, P values are provided for the b2 coefficients from Table 3.

Figure 1
Lab cost per day and per visit.
Figure 2
Secondary outcomes: tests per day, LOS, and readmissions. Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time.

DISCUSSION

Through a multifaceted quality‐improvement initiative, the UUHC hospitalist group was able to reduce lab cost per day and per visit as well as commonly ordered routine labs as compared to an institutional control group. A multifaceted approach was selected given the literature supporting this approach as the most likely method to sustain improvement.[14] At the same time, the use of a multifaceted intervention makes it difficult to rigorously determine the relative impact of different components of the intervention. In discussing this issue, however, the hospitalist group felt that the driving factors for change were those related to process change, specifically, the use of a standardized rounding checklist to discuss lab testing and the routine review of lab costs at group meetings. The ultimate goal was to change the culture of routine test ordering into a thoughtful process of needed tests and thereby reduce costs. Prior to this intervention, the least experienced person on this team (the intern) ordered any test he or she wanted, usually without discussion. The intervention focused on this issue through standardized supervision and explicit discussion of laboratory tests. Importantly, although improvements from education initiatives typically decrease over time, the incorporation of process change in this intervention was felt to likely contribute to the sustained reduction seen at 15 months. Although use of the rounding checklist added another step to daily rounds, the routine cost feedback, including comparisons to peers, helped encourage use of the checklist. Thus, we feel that routine feedback was essential to sustaining the intervention and its impact.

Inappropriate and unnecessary testing has been recognized for decades, and multiple interventions have been attempted, including a recent article that demonstrated a 10% reduction in common laboratory ordering through an initiative mainly focused on education and ordering feedback.[25] Despite reported success of several interventions, none have combined multiple interventions and explicitly required discussion of laboratory tests on rounds. For example, although the UUHC intervention used Attali et al.[21] and Barie and Hydo's[20] work to develop the intervention, neither of these studies described how laboratory testing was discussed with the attending or supervising resident. The UUHC intervention thus builds on the current literature by combining other successful modalities with explicit discussion of laboratory testing via a rounding checklist and feedback with the novel VDO tool to reduce laboratory costs. A major strength of this intervention is the relatively low cost and the generalizability of implementing rounding checklists. Initial support from the hospital was needed to provide accurate VDO information to the hospitalist group. However, ongoing costs were minimal and related to any additional time spent during rounds to discuss laboratory tests. Thus, we feel that this intervention is feasible for wide replication.

Another strength of the study is the use of the VDO tool to measure actual costs. Whereas previous studies have relied on estimated costs with extrapolation to potential cost savings, this study used direct costs to the institution as a more accurate marker of cost savings. Additionally, most studies on lab utilization have used a before/after analysis without a control group. The presence of a control group for this analysis is important to help assess for institutional trends that may not be reflected in a before/after intervention. The reduction in cost in the intervention group despite a trend toward increased cost in the institutional control group supports the impact of this intervention.

Limitations of this study include that it was a single‐center, controlled ITS study and not a randomized controlled trial. Related to this limitation, the control group reflected a different patient population compared to the intervention group, with a longer LOS, lower CCI, and inclusion of nonmedical patients. However, these differences were relatively stable before and after the intervention. Also, ITS is considered one of the most robust research designs outside of randomized controlled trials, and it accounts for baseline differences in both levels and trends.[24] Nevertheless, it remains possible that secular trends existed that we did not capture and that affected the 2 populations differently.

A further limitation is that the baseline period was only 7 months and the intervention was 15 months. As the 7 months started in July, this could have reflected the time when interns were least experienced with ordering. Unfortunately, we did not have VDO availability for a full year prior to the intervention. We believe that any major effect due to this shortened baseline period should have been seen in the control group as well, and therefore accounted for in the analysis. Additionally, it is possible that there was spillover of the intervention to the control group, as internal medicine residents rotated throughout the hospital to other medical services (pulmonary, cardiology, hematology, and oncology). However, any effect of their rotation should have been to lower the control lab cost, thus making differences less profound.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted approach to laboratory reduction through education, process change, cost feedback, and financial incentive resulted in a significant reduction in laboratory cost per day, laboratory cost per visit, and the ordering of common laboratory tests at a major academic medical center.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Michael Swanicke for his assistance in process engineering, Mr. Tony Clawson for his routine provision of VDO data, and Ms. Selma Lopez for her editorial support.

Disclosures: K.K. is or has been a consultant on clinical decision support (CDS) or electronic clinical quality measurement to the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, ARUP Laboratories, McKesson InterQual, ESAC, Inc., JBS International, Inc., Inflexxion, Inc., Intelligent Automation, Inc., Partners HealthCare, Mayo Clinic, and the RAND Corporation. K.K. receives royalties for a Duke University‐owned CDS technology for infectious disease management known as CustomID that he helped develop. K.K. was formerly a consultant for Religent, Inc. and a co‐owner and consultant for Clinica Software, Inc., both of which provide commercial CDS services, including through use of a CDS technology known as SEBASTIAN that K.K. developed. K.K. no longer has a financial relationship with either Religent or Clinica Software. K.K. has no competing interest with any specific product or intervention evaluated in this article. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Healthcare costs continue to increase and are estimated to be approximately $3.1 trillion per year in the United States.[1] Waste is a major contributor to this cost, accounting for an estimated $910 billion/year.[2] Laboratory tests are well documented to contribute to healthcare waste, with an estimated 30% to 50% of tests for hospitalized patients being unnecessary.[3, 4, 5] This issue has been highlighted by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign as an area to reduce waste.[6] Evaluating this concern locally, a University Health Systems Consortium 2011 analysis indicated that the University of Utah general internal medicine hospitalist service had a higher average direct lab cost per discharge compared to top performers, indicating an opportunity for improvement.

Multiple interventions have been described in the literature to address excessive laboratory utilization, including physician education, audit and feedback, cost information display, and administrative rules restricting certain types of ordering.[7, 8, 9, 10, 11] Despite these interventions, barriers remain common and not all interventions are sustained. For example, interventions focused mainly on education see a small improvement initially that is not sustained.[4, 12, 13] Additionally, although most studies focus on individual interventions, those that target multiple factors have been found to be more successful at producing and sustaining change.[14] Therefore, the opportunity existed to incorporate multiple etiologies into a single intervention and apply a checklist to laboratory ordering to see if combined modalities could be effective at reducing laboratory costs in a sustainable manner.

In addition to cost, there is potential patient harm resulting from unnecessary laboratory testing. For prolonged hospitalizations, anemia is a well‐recognized side effect of phlebotomy,[15, 16] and a recent evaluation of cardiac surgery patients found an average cumulative blood loss due to phlebotomy of 454 mL/hospital stay.[17] The sheer number of tests ordered can lead to false positive tests that result in additional testing and monitoring. Furthermore, patients subjected to laboratory blood draws are often awakened early in the morning, which is unpleasant and could adversely affect the patient experience.

Recognizing laboratory cost as a problem, the University of Utah general internal medicine hospitalist service implemented a multifaceted quality‐improvement initiative with a goal to reduce laboratory testing. At the time of this project, University of Utah Health Care (UUHC) developed a Value Driven Outcomes (VDO) tool to give direct data related to costs of care, including the actual cost paid by the hospital to the university‐owned laboratory vendor (ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT) for testing.[18] The hospitalist group incorporated VDO into the initiative for routine cost feedback. This study evaluates the impact of this intervention on laboratory costs.

METHODS

Design

A retrospective, controlled, interrupted time series (ITS) study was performed to compare changes in lab costs between hospitalists (intervention study group) and other providers (control study group). The intervention initiation date was February 1, 2013. The baseline period was July 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013, as that was the period in which the VDO tool became available for cost analysis prior to intervention. The intervention period was February 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014, as there was a change in the electronic health record (EHR) in May 2014 that affected data flow and could act as a major confounder. The institutional review board classified this project as quality improvement and did not require review and oversight.

Setting

UUHC is a 500‐bed academic medical center in Salt Lake City, Utah. The hospitalist service is a teaching service composed of 4 teams with internal medicine residents and medical students. The nonhospitalist services include all surgical services, as well as pulmonary, cardiology, hematology, and oncology services on which internal medicine residents rotate. All services at UUHC are staffed by academic physicians affiliated with the University of Utah School of Medicine.

Population

All patients 18 years and older admitted to the hospital to a service other than obstetrics, rehabilitation, or psychiatry between July 1, 2012 and April 30, 2014 were evaluated. Patients with missing data for outcomes or covariates were excluded.

Intervention

Initial evaluation included an informal review of patient charts and discussion with hospitalist group members, both indicating laboratory overuse. A working group was then established including hospitalists and process engineers to evaluate the workflow by which laboratory tests were ordered. Concurrently, a literature review was performed to help identify the scope of the problem and evaluate methods that had been successful at other institutions. Through this review, it was noted that interns were the most frequent orderers of tests and the largest contributors to variation of testing for inpatients.[19] Two specific studies with direct applicability to this project demonstrated that discussion of costs with attendings in a trauma intensive care unit resulted in a 30% reduction of tests ordered,[20] and discussion of testing with a senior resident in an internal medicine inpatient setting demonstrated a 20% reduction in laboratory testing.[21]

Our laboratory reduction intervention expanded on the current literature to incorporate education, process change, cost feedback, and financial incentives. Specifically, starting February 1, 2013, the following interventions were performed:

  1. Education of all providers involved, including the hospitalist group and all internal medicine residents at the start of their rotation with the hospitalist service. Education included a 30‐minute discussion of laboratory overuse, costs associated with laboratory overuse, previous interventions and their success, and current intervention with goals. Each resident was provided a pocket card with the most common lab tests and associated charges. Charges were used instead of costs due to concerns regarding the possible public dissemination of institutional costs.
  2. Standardization of the rounding process including a checklist review (see Supporting Information, Appendix, in the online version of this article) for all patients that ensured discussion of labs, telemetry, pain, lines/tubes, nursing presence, and follow‐up needed. The expectation was that all plans for lab testing would be discussed during rounds. The third‐year medical student was responsible to ensure that all items were covered daily on each patient.
  3. Monthly feedback at the hospitalist group meeting regarding laboratory costs using the VDO tool. Data were presented as a monthly group average and compared to preintervention baseline costs. Individual performance could be viewed and compared to other providers within the group.
  4. Financial incentive through a program that shares 50% of cost savings realized by the hospital with the Division of General Internal Medicine. The incentive could be used to support future quality‐improvement projects, but there was no individual physician incentive.

 

Data Collection and Preparation

Clinical data were collected in the inpatient EHR (Cerner Corp., Kansas City, MO) and later imported into the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) as part of the normal data flow. Billing data were imported into the EDW from the billing system. Cost data were estimated using the VDO tool developed by the University of Utah to identify clinical costs to the UUHC system.[18]

Clinical and Cost Outcomes

We hypothesized that following the intervention, the number of tests and lab costs would decrease greater for patients in the intervention group than in the control group, with no adverse effect on length of stay (LOS) or 30‐day readmissions.

Lab cost per day was calculated as the total lab cost per visit divided by the LOS. We adjusted all lab costs to 2013 US dollars using Consumer Price Index inflation data.[22] To account for different LOS, we used LOS as a weight variable when estimating descriptive characteristics and P values for lab cost per day and the number of tests. Thirty‐day readmissions included inpatient encounters followed by another inpatient encounter within 30 days excluding obstetrics, rehabilitation, and psychiatry visits.

Descriptive Variables

We included information on age at admission in years and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to evaluate differences in control and intervention groups.[23]

Statistical Analysis

First, unadjusted descriptive statistics were calculated for study outcomes and visit characteristics. Descriptive statistics were expressed as n (%) and mean standard deviation. Simple comparisons were performed based on 2 tests of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t tests for continuous variables.

Second, an ITS analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention while accounting for baseline trends.[24] In this analysis, the dependent variable (yt) was the difference in aggregated outcome measures between the intervention and control groups every 2 weeks (eg, difference in average lab costs in a given 2‐week period between the 2 groups). Intervention impact was then evaluated in terms of changes in the level of the outcome (b2) as well as in the trend over time (b3) compared to the initial difference in means (b0) and baseline trend (b1). The following difference‐in‐differences segmented regression model was fitted using the autoreg procedure in SAS: yt = b0 + b1*timet + b2*study periodt + b3*time after the interventiont + errort, where timet is biweekly intervals after the beginning of the study, time after the interventiont is biweekly intervals after the intervention date, and study periodt is 1 postintervention and 0 preintervention. The models were fitted using maximum likelihood and stepwise autoregression to test 24 lags.

P values <0.05 were considered significant. SAS (version 9.3; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 48,327 inpatient visits that met inclusion criteria. We excluded 15,659 obstetrics, rehabilitation, and psychiatry visits. Seven hundred seventy‐two (2.4%) of the remaining visits were excluded due to missing data. A total of 31,896 inpatient visits by 22,545 patients were included in the analysis. There were 10,136 visits before the intervention and 21,760 visits after. Characteristics of the study groups for the full study timeframe (July 1, 2012April 30, 2014) are summarized in Table 1.

Study Group Characteristics for Full Study Timeframe
CharacteristicStudy Group*
Overall, N = 31,896Control, N = 25,586Intervention, N = 6,310P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t test for continuous variables.

Patient characteristics    
Age, y55.47 17.6155.27 17.1356.30 19.39<0.001
Female gender14,995 (47%)11,753 (46%)3,242 (51%)<0.001
CCI3.73 3.253.61 3.174.20 3.54<0.001
Outcomes    
Cost per day, $130.95 392.16131.57 423.94127.68 220.400.022
Cost per visit, $733.75 1,693.98772.30 1,847.65577.40 795.29<0.001
BMP tests per day0.73 1.170.74 1.190.67 1.05<0.001
CMP tests per day0.20 0.670.19 0.680.26 0.62<0.001
CBC tests per day0.83 1.100.84 1.150.73 0.82<0.001
PT/INR tests per day0.36 1.030.36 1.070.34 0.83<.001
LOS, d5.60 7.125.87 7.554.52 4.82<0.001
30‐day readmissions4,374 (14%)3,603 (14%)771 (12%)<0.001

During the study period, there were 25,586 visits in the control group and 6310 visits in the intervention group. Patients in the intervention group were on average older than patients in the control group. There were more female patients in the intervention group. Mean CCI was 4.2 in the intervention group and 3.6 in the control group. The intervention group had lower LOS and 30‐day readmissions than the control group.

Descriptive statistics and simple comparisons of covariates and outcomes before and after the intervention are shown in Table 2. Age and gender distributions remained unchanged in both groups. CCI increased in the control group by 0.24 (P < 0.001) and remained unchanged in the intervention group. In the intervention group, lab cost per day was reduced from $138 before the intervention to $123 after the intervention (P < 0.001). In contrast, among control patients, cost per day increased nonsignificantly from $130 preintervention to $132 postintervention (P = 0.37). Number of tests per day significantly decreased for all specific tests in the intervention group. Readmission rates decreased significantly from 14% to 11% in the intervention group (P = 0.01). LOS remained constant in both groups.

Outcomes Pre‐/Postintervention by Study Group
Characteristic*ControlIntervention
Preintervention, N = 8,102Postintervention, N = 17,484P ValuePreintervention, N = 2,034Postintervention, N = 4,276P Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and on t test for continuous variables.

Patient characteristics      
Age, yr55.17 17.4655.31 16.980.5555.90 19.4756.50 19.350.25
Female gender3,707 (46%)8,046 (46%)0.691,039 (51%)2,203 (52%)0.74
CCI3.45 3.063.69 3.21<0.0014.19 3.514.20 3.560.89
Outcomes      
Cost per day, $130.1 431.8132.2 420.30.37137.9 232.9122.9 213.5<0.001
Cost per visit, $760.4 1,813.6777.8 1,863.30.48617.8 844.1558.2 770.30.005
BMP tests per day0.74 1.210.74 1.180.670.75 1.030.63 1.05<0.001
CMP tests per day0.19 0.680.19 0.680.850.32 0.680.23 0.58<0.001
CBC tests per day0.85 1.140.84 1.150.0450.92 0.790.64 0.76<0.001
PT/INR tests per day0.34 1.040.37 1.08<0.0010.35 0.820.33 0.840.020
LOS, d5.84 7.665.88 7.500.714.48 5.124.54 4.670.63
30‐day readmissions1,173 (14%)2,430 (14%)0.22280 (14%)491 (11%)0.010

ITS analysis results are shown in Table 3. After the intervention, the difference in monthly means between the 2 groups dropped by $16 for cost per day (P = 0.034) and by $128 for cost per visit (P = 0.02). The decreased cost in the intervention group amounts to approximately $251,427 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $20,370‐$482,484) savings over the first year. If the intervention was rolled out for the control group and had a similar impact, it could have led to an additional cost savings of $1,321,669 (95% CI: 107,081‐2,536,256). Moreover, the number of basic metabolic panel, comprehensive metabolic panel, and complete blood count test per day were reduced significantly more in the intervention group compared to the control group (<0.001, 0.004, and <0.001).

Parameter Estimates and P Values from Difference‐in‐Differences Models
OutcomeParameter*Parameter EstimateStandard Errort ValuePr > |t|
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time. *Parameter estimates are based on difference‐in‐differences segmented regression models.

Lab cost per day ($)Baseline difference level (b0)9.34506.56401.42370.16
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.21500.77090.27890.78
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)16.12007.32972.19930.034
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.23880.80900.29520.77
Lab cost per visit ($)Baseline difference level (b0)166.08148.34253.43550.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)3.66635.85710.62600.53
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)128.52753.02782.42380.020
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)2.25865.84630.38630.70
BMP tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.00610.02500.24390.81
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00040.00300.14490.89
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.10340.02763.7426<0.001
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00140.00300.45880.65
CMP tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.12260.02265.4302<0.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00150.00280.55390.58
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.07540.02483.03970.004
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00300.00281.09370.28
CBC tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.05390.01902.83380.007
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00130.00230.55940.58
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.23430.021310.997<0.001
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00360.00231.55390.13
PT/INR tests per dayBaseline difference level (b0)0.04130.02421.70630.096
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00400.00281.40950.17
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.05000.02701.85070.072
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00540.00301.79400.080
LOS, dBaseline difference level (b0)1.42110.27465.1743<0.001
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00930.03330.28070.78
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.10070.29880.33680.74
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00530.03310.15880.87
30‐day readmissionsBaseline difference level (b0)0.00570.01850.30840.76
Baseline difference trend (b1)0.00170.00220.80160.43
Change in difference level after intervention(b2)0.01100.02060.53150.60
Change in difference trend after intervention (b3)0.00210.00230.91110.37

Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the biweekly means for the 2 primary outcomeslab cost per day and lab cost per visit. Figure 2 shows all other outcomes. To the right of each figure, P values are provided for the b2 coefficients from Table 3.

Figure 1
Lab cost per day and per visit.
Figure 2
Secondary outcomes: tests per day, LOS, and readmissions. Abbreviations: BMP, basic metabolic panel; CBC, complete blood count; CMP, comprehensive metabolic panel; INR, international normalized ratio; LOS, length of stay; PT, prothrombin time.

DISCUSSION

Through a multifaceted quality‐improvement initiative, the UUHC hospitalist group was able to reduce lab cost per day and per visit as well as commonly ordered routine labs as compared to an institutional control group. A multifaceted approach was selected given the literature supporting this approach as the most likely method to sustain improvement.[14] At the same time, the use of a multifaceted intervention makes it difficult to rigorously determine the relative impact of different components of the intervention. In discussing this issue, however, the hospitalist group felt that the driving factors for change were those related to process change, specifically, the use of a standardized rounding checklist to discuss lab testing and the routine review of lab costs at group meetings. The ultimate goal was to change the culture of routine test ordering into a thoughtful process of needed tests and thereby reduce costs. Prior to this intervention, the least experienced person on this team (the intern) ordered any test he or she wanted, usually without discussion. The intervention focused on this issue through standardized supervision and explicit discussion of laboratory tests. Importantly, although improvements from education initiatives typically decrease over time, the incorporation of process change in this intervention was felt to likely contribute to the sustained reduction seen at 15 months. Although use of the rounding checklist added another step to daily rounds, the routine cost feedback, including comparisons to peers, helped encourage use of the checklist. Thus, we feel that routine feedback was essential to sustaining the intervention and its impact.

Inappropriate and unnecessary testing has been recognized for decades, and multiple interventions have been attempted, including a recent article that demonstrated a 10% reduction in common laboratory ordering through an initiative mainly focused on education and ordering feedback.[25] Despite reported success of several interventions, none have combined multiple interventions and explicitly required discussion of laboratory tests on rounds. For example, although the UUHC intervention used Attali et al.[21] and Barie and Hydo's[20] work to develop the intervention, neither of these studies described how laboratory testing was discussed with the attending or supervising resident. The UUHC intervention thus builds on the current literature by combining other successful modalities with explicit discussion of laboratory testing via a rounding checklist and feedback with the novel VDO tool to reduce laboratory costs. A major strength of this intervention is the relatively low cost and the generalizability of implementing rounding checklists. Initial support from the hospital was needed to provide accurate VDO information to the hospitalist group. However, ongoing costs were minimal and related to any additional time spent during rounds to discuss laboratory tests. Thus, we feel that this intervention is feasible for wide replication.

Another strength of the study is the use of the VDO tool to measure actual costs. Whereas previous studies have relied on estimated costs with extrapolation to potential cost savings, this study used direct costs to the institution as a more accurate marker of cost savings. Additionally, most studies on lab utilization have used a before/after analysis without a control group. The presence of a control group for this analysis is important to help assess for institutional trends that may not be reflected in a before/after intervention. The reduction in cost in the intervention group despite a trend toward increased cost in the institutional control group supports the impact of this intervention.

Limitations of this study include that it was a single‐center, controlled ITS study and not a randomized controlled trial. Related to this limitation, the control group reflected a different patient population compared to the intervention group, with a longer LOS, lower CCI, and inclusion of nonmedical patients. However, these differences were relatively stable before and after the intervention. Also, ITS is considered one of the most robust research designs outside of randomized controlled trials, and it accounts for baseline differences in both levels and trends.[24] Nevertheless, it remains possible that secular trends existed that we did not capture and that affected the 2 populations differently.

A further limitation is that the baseline period was only 7 months and the intervention was 15 months. As the 7 months started in July, this could have reflected the time when interns were least experienced with ordering. Unfortunately, we did not have VDO availability for a full year prior to the intervention. We believe that any major effect due to this shortened baseline period should have been seen in the control group as well, and therefore accounted for in the analysis. Additionally, it is possible that there was spillover of the intervention to the control group, as internal medicine residents rotated throughout the hospital to other medical services (pulmonary, cardiology, hematology, and oncology). However, any effect of their rotation should have been to lower the control lab cost, thus making differences less profound.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted approach to laboratory reduction through education, process change, cost feedback, and financial incentive resulted in a significant reduction in laboratory cost per day, laboratory cost per visit, and the ordering of common laboratory tests at a major academic medical center.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Michael Swanicke for his assistance in process engineering, Mr. Tony Clawson for his routine provision of VDO data, and Ms. Selma Lopez for her editorial support.

Disclosures: K.K. is or has been a consultant on clinical decision support (CDS) or electronic clinical quality measurement to the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, ARUP Laboratories, McKesson InterQual, ESAC, Inc., JBS International, Inc., Inflexxion, Inc., Intelligent Automation, Inc., Partners HealthCare, Mayo Clinic, and the RAND Corporation. K.K. receives royalties for a Duke University‐owned CDS technology for infectious disease management known as CustomID that he helped develop. K.K. was formerly a consultant for Religent, Inc. and a co‐owner and consultant for Clinica Software, Inc., both of which provide commercial CDS services, including through use of a CDS technology known as SEBASTIAN that K.K. developed. K.K. no longer has a financial relationship with either Religent or Clinica Software. K.K. has no competing interest with any specific product or intervention evaluated in this article. All other authors declare no competing interests.

References
  1. Keehan SP, Cuckler GA, Sisko AM, et al. National health expenditure projections, 2014–24: spending growth faster than recent trends. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(8):14071417.
  2. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):15131516.
  3. Melanson SE, Szymanski T, Rogers SO, et al. Utilization of arterial blood gas measurements in a large tertiary care hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:604609.
  4. Hindmarsh JT, Lyon AW. Strategies to promote rational clinical chemistry test utilization. Clin Biochem. 1996;29:291299.
  5. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen‐Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15‐year meta‐analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78962.
  6. ABIM Choosing Wisely Society of Hospital Medicine–Adult Hospital Medicine. Five things physicians and patients should question. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/societies/society‐of‐hospital‐medicine‐adult. Published February 21, 2013. Accessed September 2, 2015.
  7. Pugh JA, Frazier LM, DeLong E, Wallace AG, Ellenbogen P, Linfors E. Effect of daily charge feedback on inpatient charges and physician knowledge and behavior. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:426429.
  8. Wang TJ, Mort EA, Nordberg P, et al. A utilization management intervention to reduce unnecessary testing in the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:18851890.
  9. Neilson EG, Johnson KB, Rosenbloom ST, et al. The impact of peer management on test‐ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:196204.
  10. Calderon‐Margalit R, Mor‐Yosef S, Mayer M, Adler B, Shapira SC. An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:243248.
  11. Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):903908.
  12. Schroeder SA, Myers LP, McPhee SJ, et al. The failure of physician education as a cost containment strategy. JAMA. 1984;252:225230.
  13. Catrou PG. Is that lab test necessary? Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:335336.
  14. Solomon AD, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH. Techniques to improve physicians' use of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1998;280:20202027.
  15. Ezzie ME, Aberegg SK, O'Brien JM. Laboratory testing in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin. 2007;23:435465.
  16. Woodhouse S. Complications of critical care: lab testing and iatrogenic anemia. MLO Med Lab Obs. 200;33(10):2831.
  17. Koch CG, Reineks EZ, Tang AS, et al. Contemporary bloodletting in cardiac surgical care. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:779785.
  18. Kawamoto K, Martin CJ, Williams K, et al. Value Driven Outcomes (VDO): a pragmatic, modular, and extensible software framework for understanding and improving health care costs and outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015:22:223235.
  19. Iwashyna TJ, Fuld A, Asch DA. The impact of residents, interns, and attendings on inpatient laboratory ordering patterns: a report from one university's hospitalist service. Acad Med. 2011;86:139145.
  20. Barie PS, Hydo LJ. Learning to not know: results of a program for ancillary cost reduction in surgical care. J Trauma. 1996;41:714720.
  21. Attali M, Barel Y, Somin M, et al. A cost‐effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university‐associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73:787794.
  22. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI inflation calculator. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed May 22, 2015.
  23. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1131139.
  24. Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross‐Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27(4):299309.
  25. Corson AH, Fan VS, White T, et al. A multifaceted hospitalist quality improvement intervention: decreased frequency of common labs. J Hosp Med. 2015;10:390395.
References
  1. Keehan SP, Cuckler GA, Sisko AM, et al. National health expenditure projections, 2014–24: spending growth faster than recent trends. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(8):14071417.
  2. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):15131516.
  3. Melanson SE, Szymanski T, Rogers SO, et al. Utilization of arterial blood gas measurements in a large tertiary care hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:604609.
  4. Hindmarsh JT, Lyon AW. Strategies to promote rational clinical chemistry test utilization. Clin Biochem. 1996;29:291299.
  5. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen‐Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15‐year meta‐analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78962.
  6. ABIM Choosing Wisely Society of Hospital Medicine–Adult Hospital Medicine. Five things physicians and patients should question. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/societies/society‐of‐hospital‐medicine‐adult. Published February 21, 2013. Accessed September 2, 2015.
  7. Pugh JA, Frazier LM, DeLong E, Wallace AG, Ellenbogen P, Linfors E. Effect of daily charge feedback on inpatient charges and physician knowledge and behavior. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:426429.
  8. Wang TJ, Mort EA, Nordberg P, et al. A utilization management intervention to reduce unnecessary testing in the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:18851890.
  9. Neilson EG, Johnson KB, Rosenbloom ST, et al. The impact of peer management on test‐ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:196204.
  10. Calderon‐Margalit R, Mor‐Yosef S, Mayer M, Adler B, Shapira SC. An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:243248.
  11. Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):903908.
  12. Schroeder SA, Myers LP, McPhee SJ, et al. The failure of physician education as a cost containment strategy. JAMA. 1984;252:225230.
  13. Catrou PG. Is that lab test necessary? Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:335336.
  14. Solomon AD, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH. Techniques to improve physicians' use of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1998;280:20202027.
  15. Ezzie ME, Aberegg SK, O'Brien JM. Laboratory testing in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin. 2007;23:435465.
  16. Woodhouse S. Complications of critical care: lab testing and iatrogenic anemia. MLO Med Lab Obs. 200;33(10):2831.
  17. Koch CG, Reineks EZ, Tang AS, et al. Contemporary bloodletting in cardiac surgical care. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:779785.
  18. Kawamoto K, Martin CJ, Williams K, et al. Value Driven Outcomes (VDO): a pragmatic, modular, and extensible software framework for understanding and improving health care costs and outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015:22:223235.
  19. Iwashyna TJ, Fuld A, Asch DA. The impact of residents, interns, and attendings on inpatient laboratory ordering patterns: a report from one university's hospitalist service. Acad Med. 2011;86:139145.
  20. Barie PS, Hydo LJ. Learning to not know: results of a program for ancillary cost reduction in surgical care. J Trauma. 1996;41:714720.
  21. Attali M, Barel Y, Somin M, et al. A cost‐effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university‐associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73:787794.
  22. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI inflation calculator. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed May 22, 2015.
  23. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1131139.
  24. Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross‐Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27(4):299309.
  25. Corson AH, Fan VS, White T, et al. A multifaceted hospitalist quality improvement intervention: decreased frequency of common labs. J Hosp Med. 2015;10:390395.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(5)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(5)
Page Number
348-354
Page Number
348-354
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Multifaceted intervention including education, rounding checklist implementation, cost feedback, and financial incentives reduces inpatient laboratory costs
Display Headline
Multifaceted intervention including education, rounding checklist implementation, cost feedback, and financial incentives reduces inpatient laboratory costs
Sections
Article Source

© 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Peter M. Yarbrough, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, George E. Whalen Veteran Affairs Medical Center, 500 Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84148; Telephone: 801‐584‐1234; Fax: 801‐584‐1298; E‐mail: peter.yarbrough@hsc.utah.edu
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Evidence‐Based Care for Cellulitis

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/16/2017 - 22:48
Display Headline
Evidence‐based care pathway for cellulitis improves process, clinical, and cost outcomes

Cellulitis is a common infection causing inflammation of the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Cellulitis has been attributed to gram‐positive organisms through historical evaluations including fine‐needle aspirates and punch biopsies of the infected tissue.[1] Neither of these diagnostic tests is currently used due to their invasiveness, poor diagnostic yield, and availability. Similarly, readily available tests such as blood cultures provide an etiology <5% of the time[1] and are not cost‐effective for most patients for diagnosing cellulitis.[2] In addition, the prevalence of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has steadily increased, complicating decisions about antibiotic selection.[3] The result of this uncertainty is a large variation in practice with respect to antibiotic and imaging selection for patients with a diagnosis of cellulitis.

University of Utah Health Care (UUHC) performed benchmarking for the management of cellulitis using the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database and associated CareFx analytics tool. Benchmarking demonstrated that UUHC had a greater percentage of broad‐spectrum antibiotic use (defined as vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, or carbapenems) than the top 5 performing UHC facilities for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐9‐CM) diagnoses of cellulitis (vancomycin 83% vs 58% and carbapenem or piperacillin/tazobactam 44% vs 16%). Advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) for the diagnosis of cellulitis was also found to be an opportunity for improvement (CT 27% vs 20% and MRI 8% vs 5%). The hospitalist group (most patients admitted with cellulitis were on this service) believed these data reflected current practice, as there was no standard of treatment for cellulitis despite an active order set. Therefore, cellulitis was considered an opportunity to improve value to our patients. A standardized clinical care pathway was created, as such pathways have demonstrated a reduction in variation in practice and improved efficiency and effectiveness of care for multiple disease states including cellulitis.[4, 5] We hypothesized that implementation of an evidence‐based care pathway would decrease broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, cost, and use of advanced imaging without having any adverse effects on clinical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS) or readmission.

METHODS

Study Setting and Population

UUHC is a 500‐bed academic medical center in Salt Lake City, Utah. All patients admitted to the emergency department observation unit (EDOU) or the hospital with a primary ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis of cellulitis between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 were evaluated.

Intervention

Initial steps involved the formation of a multidisciplinary team including key stakeholders from the hospitalist group, infectious diseases, the emergency department (ED), and nursing. This multidisciplinary team was charged with developing a clinical care pathway appropriate for local implementation. National guidance for the care pathway was mainly obtained from the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs)[6] and MRSA.[7] Specific attention was paid to recommendations on blood cultures (only when systemically ill), imaging (rarely needed), antibiotic selection (rarely gram‐negative coverage and consideration of MRSA coverage), and patient‐care principles that are often overlooked (elevation of the affected extremity). A distinction of purulent versus nonpurulent cellulitis was adopted based on the guidelines and a prospective evaluation of the care of patients with nonpurulent cellulitis.[8] The 2014 IDSA update on SSTIs incorporates this distinction more clearly in hopes of determining staphylococcal versus streptococcal infections.[9] After multiple iterations, an agreed‐upon care pathway was created that excluded patients with neutropenia, osteomyelitis, diabetic foot ulcerations; hand, perineal, periorbital, or surgical site infections; and human or animal bites (Figure 1). After the care pathway was determined, interventions were performed to implement this change.

Figure 1
Cellulitis care pathway. DM, diabetes mellitus; ECU, emergency care unit; ED, emergency department; GU, genitourinary; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; ID, infectious disease; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; s/p, status post; SMX, sulfamethoxazole; s/s, signs and symptoms; TMP, trimethoprim; Vanc, vancomycin.

Education of all providers involved included discussion of cellulitis as a disease process, presentation of benchmarking data, dissemination of the care pathway to hospitalist and ED physicians, teaching conferences for internal medicine residents and ED residents, and reinforcement of these concepts at the beginning of resident rotations.

Incorporation of the care pathway into the existing electronic order sets for cellulitis care in the inpatient and ED settings, with links to the care pathway, links to excluded disease processes (eg, hand cellulitis), preselection of commonly needed items (eg, elevate leg), and recommendations for antibiotic selection based on categories of purulent or nonpurulent cellulitis. The electronic health record (EHR) did not allow for forced order set usage, so the order set required selection by the admitting physician if indicated. Additionally, an embedded 48‐hour order set could be accessed at any time by the ordering physician and included vancomycin dosing. Specific changes to the preexisting order set included the development of sections for purulent and nonpurulent cellulitis as well as recommended antibiotics. Piperacillin/tazobactam and nafcillin were both removed and vancomycin was limited to the purulent subheading. Additionally, elevation of the extremity was preselected, and orderables for imaging (chest x‐ray and duplex ultrasound), antiulcer prophylaxis, telemetry, and electrocardiograph were all removed.

Audit and feedback of cases of cellulitis and broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage was performed by a senior hospitalist.

Study Design

A retrospective before/after study was performed to assess overall impact of the intervention on the patient population. Additionally, a retrospective controlled pre‐/postintervention study was performed to compare changes in cellulitis management for visits where order sets were used with visits where order sets were not used. The intervention initiation date was July 9, 2012. The institutional review board classified this project as quality improvement and did not require review and oversight.

Study Population

We analyzed 2278 ED and inpatient visits for cellulitis, of which 677 met inclusion criteria. We partitioned visits into 2 groups: (1) those for which order sets were used (n = 370) and (2) control visits for which order sets were not used (n = 307). We analyzed outcomes for 2 subpopulations: hospitalized patients for whom the EDOU or admission order sets were used (n = 149) and patients not admitted and only seen in the EDOU for whom the EDOU order set was used (n = 262).

Inclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria included hospital admission or admission to the EDOU between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, age greater or equal to 18 years, and primary diagnosis of cellulitis as determined by ICD‐9‐CM billing codes 035, 457.2, 681, 681.0, 681.00, 681.01, 681.02, 681.1, 681.10, 681.11, 681.9, 680, 680.0‐9, 682.0‐9, 684, 685.0, 685.1, 686.00, 686.01, 686.09, 686.1, 686.8, 686.9, 910.1, 910.5, 910.7, 910.9, 911.1, 911.3, 911.5, 911.7, 911.9, 912.1, 912.3, 912.5, 912.7, 912.9, 913.1, 913.3, 913.5, 913.7, 913.9, 914.1, 914.3, 914.5, 914.7, 914.9, 915.1, 915.3, 915.5, 915.7, 915.9, 916.1, 916.3, 916.5, 916.7, 916.9, 917.1, 917.3, 917.5, 917.7, 917.9, 919.1, 919.3, 919.5, 919.7, or 919.9.

Data Collection and Preparation

Clinical data were collected in the inpatient EHR (Cerner Corp., Kansas City, MO) and later imported into the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) as part of the normal data flow. Billing data were imported into the EDW from the billing system. Cost data were estimated using the value‐driven outcomes (VDO) tool developed by the University of Utah to identify clinical costs to the UUHC system.[10] All data were extracted from the EDW on September 10, 2014.

Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes

We defined 1 primary outcome (use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics) and 8 secondary outcomes, including process metrics (MRI and CT orders), clinical outcomes (LOS and 30‐day readmissions), and cost outcomes (pharmacy, lab, imaging cost from radiology department, and total facility cost). Broad‐spectrum antibiotics were defined as any use of meropenem (UUHC's carbapenem), piperacillin/tazobactam, or vancomycin and were determined by orders. Thirty‐day readmissions included only inpatient encounters with the primary diagnosis of cellulitis.

Covariates

To control for patient demographics we included age at admission in years and gender into the statistical model. To control for background health state as well as cellulitis severity, we included Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and hospitalization status. CCI was calculated according to the algorithm specified by Quan et al.[11]

Study Hypotheses

First, for all patients, we hypothesized that process metrics as well as clinical and cost outcomes would improve following the implementation of the care pathway. To evaluate this hypothesis, we estimated impact of the time interval (pre‐/postintervention) on all outcomes. Second, we hypothesized that among patients for whom order sets were used (which we deemed to be a proxy for following the agreed‐upon care pathway), there would be a greater improvement than in patients for whom order sets were not used. To evaluate this hypothesis, we estimated interactions between order set use and time period (pre‐/postintervention) for all outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

The variable time period was created to represent the time period before and after the intervention.

We provided unadjusted descriptive statistics for study outcomes and visit characteristics for all patients before and after intervention. Descriptive statistics were expressed as n (%) and mean standard deviation. Simple comparisons were performed based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and t test or Wilcoxon test for continuous variables.

For before/after analysis, we fitted generalized linear regression models to estimate the change in outcomes of interest before and after intervention for all patients simultaneously. Generalized linear model defined by a binomial distributional assumption and logit link function was used to estimate the effect of the intervention on antibiotic use, imaging orders, and readmission adjusting for effects of age, gender, CCI, and hospitalization status. A generalized linear model defined by a gamma distributional assumption and log link function was used to estimate effect of the intervention on clinical LOS and cost outcomes adjusting for the effects of the same covariates. Generalized linear models with gamma distributional assumptions were used because they are known to perform well even for zero‐inflated semicontinuous cost variables and are easier to interpret than 2‐part models.

For the controlled before/after analysis, the variable order set used was created to represent groups where order sets were used or not used. Similarly, generalized linear models were used to estimate differential effect of the intervention at 2 different order set use levels using an interaction term between order set use and the time period.

P values <0.05 were considered significant. We used SAS version 9.3 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for data analysis.

RESULTS

Descriptive Characteristics

Patient characteristics before and after intervention for 677 EDOU and inpatient visits for cellulitis by 618 patients are summarized in the first 4 columns of Table 1. Patient age at admission ranged from 18 to 98 years. Thirty‐eight percent of visits were by female patients. There were 274 visits before the intervention and 403 visits after. Four hundred thirty‐two (64%) were admitted, and 295 (44%) were seen in the EDOU. The admission order set alone was used for 104 visits, the EDOU order set alone was used for 242 visits, and both order sets were used for 24 visits.

Visit Characteristics and Outcomes Pre‐/Postintervention
CharacteristicOverallOrder Sets Not UsedOrder Sets Used
Baseline, N = 274Intervention, N = 403P*Baseline, N = 127Intervention, N = 180P*Baseline, N = 147Intervention, N = 223P*
  • NOTE: Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. Due to the sensitive nature of cost data, unadjusted estimates are not shown per institutional policy. We show relative values based on baseline cost for each group. Abbreviations: ADM, admission; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CT, computed tomography; EDOU, emergency department observation unit; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not applicable. *P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and Wilcoxon or t test for continuous variables.

Patient Characteristics    
Age, y46.8 16.048.9 17.10.09749.8 16.05.1 16.30.8844.2 15.548.0 17.60.032
Female gender105 (38%)155 (39%)0.9350 (39%)74 (41%)0.7355 (37%)81 (36%)0.86
CCI2.6 3.22.6 3.00.693.2 3.53.2 3.20.822.0 2.82.1 2.70.68
Clinical process characteristics  
EDOU admission122 (45%)173 (43%)0.6812 (9%)19 (11%)0.75110 (75%)154 (69%)0.23
Hospital admission173 (63%)259 (64%)0.76117 (92%)166 (92%)0.9856 (38%)93 (42%)0.49
EDOU order set used111 (41%)155 (38%)0.59NANANA111 (76%)155 (70%)0.21
ADM order set used47 (17%)81 (20%)0.34NANANA47 (32%)81 (36%)0.39
Process outcomes   
Broad‐spectrum antibiotics used205 (75%)230 (57%)<0.00190 (71%)121 (67%)0.50115 (78%)109 (49%)<0.001
MRI done27 (10%)32 (8%)0.3913 (10%)20 (11%)0.8114 (10%)12 (5%)0.13
CT done56 (20%)76 (19%)0.6132 (25%)43 (24%)0.7924 (16%)33 (15%)0.69
Clinical outcomes  
Length of stay, d2.7 2.62.6 2.80.353.6 2.83.8 3.40.622.0 2.11.7 1.60.48
30‐day readmission14 (5%)17 (4%)0.597 (6%)9 (5%)0.847 (5%)8 (4%)0.58
Cost outcomes  
Pharmacy cost ($)10.760.00210.890.1310.560.004
Lab cost ($)10.52<0.00110.530.00110.510.055
Imaging cost ($)10.820.1110.950.5210.670.13
Total facility cost ($)10.850.02710.910.04210.770.26

Before/After Analysis

Among all patients, use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics decreased from 75% to 57% (Table 1). Analysis adjusted for gender, age at admission, CCI, and hospital admission status is provided in Table 2. Overall, there was a 59% decrease in the odds of ordering broad‐spectrum antibiotics (P < 0.001), a 23% decrease in pharmacy cost (P = 0.002), a 44% decrease in laboratory cost (P < 0.001), and a 13% decrease in total facility cost (P = 0.006).

Impact of the Intervention on Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes
Logistic Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesOdds*Percent ChangeP
Gamma Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesFold Change*Percent ChangeP
  • NOTE: *Exponentiation of the parameter for the variable represents odds for categorical variables and fold change in amount for continuous variables. Minus sign represents decrease in percent change in odds or fold change. P values are based on generalized linear models including gender, age at admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospitalization status, and time period as predictor variables.

Antibiotics usedTime period0.41 (0.29, 0.59)59% (71% to 41%)<0.001
MRI doneTime period0.74 (0.43, 1.30)26% (57% to 30%)0.29
CT doneTime period0.92 (0.62, 1.36)8% (38% to 36%)0.67
30‐day readmissionTime period0.86 (0.41, 1.80)14% (59% to 80%)0.69
Length of stay, dTime period0.97 (0.91, 1.03)3% (9% to 3%)0.34
Pharmacy cost ($)Time period0.77 (0.65, 0.91)23% (35% to 9%)0.002
Lab cost ($)Time period0.56 (0.48, 0.65)44% (52% to 35%)<0.001
Imaging cost($)Time period0.90 (0.71, 1.14)10% (29% to 14%)0.38
Total facility cost ($)Time Period0.87 (0.79, 0.96)13% (21% to 4%)0.006

Order Set Use Groups Analysis

Descriptive statistics and simple comparison before/after the intervention for the 2 study groups are shown in the last 6 columns of Table 1. Among patients for whom order sets were used, broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage significantly decreased from 78% before the intervention to 49% after the intervention (P < 0.001). In contrast, among patients for whom order sets were not used, broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage remained relatively constant71% before the intervention versus 67% after the intervention (P = 0.50). Figure 2 shows semiannual changes in the prescription of broad‐spectrum antibiotics. There is a noticeable drop after the intervention among patients for whom order sets were used.

Figure 2
Semiannual changes in broad‐spectrum antibiotic prescription rates.

Analysis of the interaction between time period and order set usage is provided in Table 3. After the intervention, patients for whom the order sets were used had greater improvement in broad‐spectrum antibiotic selection (75% decrease, P < 0.001) and LOS (25% decrease, P = 0.041) than patients for whom order sets were not used. Pharmacy costs also decreased by 13% more among patients for whom the order sets were used, although the interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.074). Laboratory costs decreased in both groups, but order set use did not demonstrate an interaction (P = 0.5). Similar results were found for the subgroups of admitted patients and patients seen in the EDOU.

Differential Impact of the Intervention on Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes in Two Order Set Use Levels
Logistic Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesOdds*Percent ChangeP
Gamma Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesFold Change*Percent ChangeP
  • * Exponentiation of the parameter for the variable represents odds for categorical variables and fold change in amount for continuous variables. Minus sign represents decrease in percent change in odds or fold change. P values are based on generalized linear models including gender, age at admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospitalization status, order set use, time period, and interaction term between time period and order set use as predictor variables.

Broad spectrum antibioticsTime period0.84 (0.50, 1.40)16% (50% to 40%)0.50
Time periodorder set0.25 (0.12, 0.52)75% (88% to 48%)<0.001
MRI doneTime period1.04 (0.49, 2.20)4% (51% to 120%)0.92
Time periodorder set0.44 (0.14, 1.38)56% (86% to 38%)0.16
CT doneTime period0.94 (0.55, 1.60)6% (45% to 60%)0.81
Time periodorder set0.96 (0.44, 2.12)4% (56% to 112%)0.93
30‐day readmissionTime period0.91 (0.33, 2.53)9% (67% to 153%)0.86
Time periodorder set0.88 (0.20, 3.93)12% (80% to 293%)0.87
Clinical length of stayTime period1.04 (0.95, 1.14)4% (5% to 14%)0.41
Time periodorder set0.87 (0.77, 0.99)13% (23% to 1%)0.041
Pharmacy cost ($)Time period0.88 (0.70, 1.12)12% (30% to 12%)0.31
Time periodorder set0.75 (0.54, 1.03)25% (46% to 3%)0.074
Lab cost ($)Time period0.53 (0.42, 0.66)47% (58% to 34%)<0.001
Time periodorder set1.11 (0.82, 1.50)11% (18% to 50%)0.50
Imaging cost ($)Time period1.00 (0.71, 1.40)0% (29% to 40%)0.98
Time periodorder set0.82 (0.51, 1.30)18% (49% to 30%)0.39
Facility cost ($)Time period0.92 (0.80, 1.05)8% (20% to 5%)0.22
Time periodorder set0.90 (0.75, 1.09)10% (25% to 9%)0.29

Audit and feedback was initially performed for cases of cellulitis using broad‐spectrum antibiotics. However, given the complexity of cellulitis as a disease process and the frequency of broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage, in all cases of review, it was deemed reasonable to use broad‐spectrum antibiotics. Therefore, the audit was not continued.

DISCUSSION

Care pathways have demonstrated improvement across multiple different disease states including cellulitis.[4, 5] They have been noted to reduce variation in practice and improve physician agreement about treatment options.[4] The best method for implementation is not clearly understood,[12] and there remains concern about maintaining flexibility for patient care.[13] Additionally, although implementation of pathways is often well described, evaluations of the processes are noted to frequently be weak.[12] UUHC felt that the literature supported implementing a care pathway for the diagnosis of cellulitis, but that a thorough evaluation was also needed to understand any resulting benefits or harms. Through this study, we found that the implementation of this pathway resulted in a significant decrease in broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, pharmacy costs, and total facility costs. There was also a trend to decrease in imaging cost, and there were no adverse effects on LOS or 30‐day readmissions. Our findings demonstrate that care‐pathway implementation accompanied by education, pathway‐compliant electronic order sets, and audit and feedback can help drive improvements in quality while reducing costs. This finding furthers the evidence supporting standard work through the creation of clinical care pathways for cellulitis as an effective intervention.[4] Additionally, although not measured in this study, reduction of antibiotic use is supported as a measure to help reduce Clostridium difficile infections, a further potential benefit.[14]

This study has several important strengths. First, we included accurate cost analyses using the VDO tool. Given the increasing importance of improving care value, we feel the inclusion of such cost analysis is an increasingly important aspect of health service intervention evaluations. Second, we used a formal benchmarking approach to identify a priority care improvement area and to monitor changes in practice following the rollout of the intervention. We feel this approach provides a useful example on how to systematically improve care quality and value in a broader health system context. Third, we evaluated not order set implementation per se, but rather changing an existing order set. Because studies in this area generally focus on initial order set implementation, our study contributes insights on what can be expected through modifications of existing order sets based on care pathways. Fourth, the analysis accounted for a variety of variables including the CCI. Of interest, our study found that the intervention group (patients for whom order sets were used) had a lower CCI, confirming Allen et al.'s findings that diseases with predictable trajectories are the most likely to benefit from care pathways.[4] As a final strength, the narrative‐based order set intervention was relatively simple, and the inclusion criteria were broad, making the process generalizable.

Limitations of this study include that it was a single center pre‐/postintervention study and not a randomized controlled trial. Related to this limitation, the control group for which order sets were not used reflected a different patient population compared to the intervention group for which order sets were used. Specifically, it was more common for order sets to be used in the EDOU than upon admission, resulting in the order set group consisting of patients with less comorbidities than patients in the nonorder set group. Additionally, patients in the order set intervention group were older than in the baseline group (48.0 vs 44.2 years). However, these differences in population remained relatively stable before and after the intervention, and relevant variables including demographic factors and CCI were accounted for in the regression models. Nevertheless, it remains possible that secular trends existed that we did not capture that affected the 2 populations differently. For example, there was a separate project that overlapped with the intervention period to reduce unnecessary laboratory usage at UUHC. This intervention could have influenced the trend to decreased laboratory utilization in the postintervention period. However, there were no concurrent initiatives to reduce antibiotic use during the study period. As a final limitation, the statistical analyses have not corrected for multiple testing for the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Using benchmark data from UHC, an academic medical center was able to identify an opportunity for improving the care of patients with cellulitis and subsequently develop an evidence‐based care pathway. The implementation of this pathway correlated with a significant reduction of broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, pharmacy costs, and total facility costs without adverse clinical affects. An important factor in the success of the intervention was the use of electronic order sets for cellulitis, which provided support for the implementation of the care pathway. This study demonstrates that the intervention was not only effective overall, but that it was more effective for those patients for whom the order set was used. This study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that a well‐defined care pathway can improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients and institutions.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. Pam Proctor for her assistance in implementation of the care pathway and Ms. Selma Lopez for her editorial assistance.

Disclosures: K.K. is or has been a consultant on clinical decision support (CDS) or electronic clinical quality measurement to the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, ARUP Laboratories, McKesson InterQual, ESAC, Inc., JBS International, Inc., Inflexxion, Inc., Intelligent Automation, Inc., Partners HealthCare, Mayo Clinic, and the RAND Corporation. K.K. receives royalties for a Duke Universityowned CDS technology for infectious disease management known as CustomID that he helped develop. K.K. was formerly a consultant for Religent, Inc. and a co‐owner and consultant for Clinica Software, Inc., both of which provide commercial CDS services, including through use of a CDS technology known as SEBASTIAN that K.K. developed. K.K. no longer has a financial relationship with either Religent or Clinica Software. K.K. has no competing interest with any specific product or intervention evaluated in this manuscript. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Files
References
  1. Swartz MN. Cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(9):904912.
  2. Perl B, Gottehrer N, Raveh D, Schlesinger Y, Rudensky B, Yinnon A. Cost‐effectiveness of blood cultures for adult patients with cellulitis. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29(6):14831488.
  3. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Methicillin‐resistant s. aureus infectious among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:666674.
  4. Allen D, Gillen E, Rixson L. Systematic review of the effectiveness of integrated care pathways: what works, for whom, in which circumstances? Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7:6174.
  5. Jenkins TC. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(12):10721079.
  6. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft‐tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:13731406.
  7. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Disease Society of American for the treatment of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus infectious in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;42:138.
  8. Jeng A, Beheshti M, Li J, Nathan R. The role of b‐hemolytic streptococci in causing diffuse, nonculturable cellulitis. Medicine. 2010;89:217226.
  9. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Disease Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):147159.
  10. Kawamoto K, Martin CJ, Williams K, et al. Value driven outcomes (VDO): a pragmatic, modular, and extensible software framework for understanding and improving health care costs and outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(1):223235.
  11. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1131139.
  12. Gooch P, Roudsari A. Computerization of workflows, guidelines, and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process‐oriented health information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:738748.
  13. Farias M, Jenkins K, Lock J, et al. Standardized clinical assessment and management plans (SCAMPs) provide a better alternative to clinical practice guidelines. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32(5):911920.
  14. Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:431455.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(12)
Publications
Page Number
780-786
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Cellulitis is a common infection causing inflammation of the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Cellulitis has been attributed to gram‐positive organisms through historical evaluations including fine‐needle aspirates and punch biopsies of the infected tissue.[1] Neither of these diagnostic tests is currently used due to their invasiveness, poor diagnostic yield, and availability. Similarly, readily available tests such as blood cultures provide an etiology <5% of the time[1] and are not cost‐effective for most patients for diagnosing cellulitis.[2] In addition, the prevalence of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has steadily increased, complicating decisions about antibiotic selection.[3] The result of this uncertainty is a large variation in practice with respect to antibiotic and imaging selection for patients with a diagnosis of cellulitis.

University of Utah Health Care (UUHC) performed benchmarking for the management of cellulitis using the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database and associated CareFx analytics tool. Benchmarking demonstrated that UUHC had a greater percentage of broad‐spectrum antibiotic use (defined as vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, or carbapenems) than the top 5 performing UHC facilities for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐9‐CM) diagnoses of cellulitis (vancomycin 83% vs 58% and carbapenem or piperacillin/tazobactam 44% vs 16%). Advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) for the diagnosis of cellulitis was also found to be an opportunity for improvement (CT 27% vs 20% and MRI 8% vs 5%). The hospitalist group (most patients admitted with cellulitis were on this service) believed these data reflected current practice, as there was no standard of treatment for cellulitis despite an active order set. Therefore, cellulitis was considered an opportunity to improve value to our patients. A standardized clinical care pathway was created, as such pathways have demonstrated a reduction in variation in practice and improved efficiency and effectiveness of care for multiple disease states including cellulitis.[4, 5] We hypothesized that implementation of an evidence‐based care pathway would decrease broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, cost, and use of advanced imaging without having any adverse effects on clinical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS) or readmission.

METHODS

Study Setting and Population

UUHC is a 500‐bed academic medical center in Salt Lake City, Utah. All patients admitted to the emergency department observation unit (EDOU) or the hospital with a primary ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis of cellulitis between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 were evaluated.

Intervention

Initial steps involved the formation of a multidisciplinary team including key stakeholders from the hospitalist group, infectious diseases, the emergency department (ED), and nursing. This multidisciplinary team was charged with developing a clinical care pathway appropriate for local implementation. National guidance for the care pathway was mainly obtained from the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs)[6] and MRSA.[7] Specific attention was paid to recommendations on blood cultures (only when systemically ill), imaging (rarely needed), antibiotic selection (rarely gram‐negative coverage and consideration of MRSA coverage), and patient‐care principles that are often overlooked (elevation of the affected extremity). A distinction of purulent versus nonpurulent cellulitis was adopted based on the guidelines and a prospective evaluation of the care of patients with nonpurulent cellulitis.[8] The 2014 IDSA update on SSTIs incorporates this distinction more clearly in hopes of determining staphylococcal versus streptococcal infections.[9] After multiple iterations, an agreed‐upon care pathway was created that excluded patients with neutropenia, osteomyelitis, diabetic foot ulcerations; hand, perineal, periorbital, or surgical site infections; and human or animal bites (Figure 1). After the care pathway was determined, interventions were performed to implement this change.

Figure 1
Cellulitis care pathway. DM, diabetes mellitus; ECU, emergency care unit; ED, emergency department; GU, genitourinary; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; ID, infectious disease; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; s/p, status post; SMX, sulfamethoxazole; s/s, signs and symptoms; TMP, trimethoprim; Vanc, vancomycin.

Education of all providers involved included discussion of cellulitis as a disease process, presentation of benchmarking data, dissemination of the care pathway to hospitalist and ED physicians, teaching conferences for internal medicine residents and ED residents, and reinforcement of these concepts at the beginning of resident rotations.

Incorporation of the care pathway into the existing electronic order sets for cellulitis care in the inpatient and ED settings, with links to the care pathway, links to excluded disease processes (eg, hand cellulitis), preselection of commonly needed items (eg, elevate leg), and recommendations for antibiotic selection based on categories of purulent or nonpurulent cellulitis. The electronic health record (EHR) did not allow for forced order set usage, so the order set required selection by the admitting physician if indicated. Additionally, an embedded 48‐hour order set could be accessed at any time by the ordering physician and included vancomycin dosing. Specific changes to the preexisting order set included the development of sections for purulent and nonpurulent cellulitis as well as recommended antibiotics. Piperacillin/tazobactam and nafcillin were both removed and vancomycin was limited to the purulent subheading. Additionally, elevation of the extremity was preselected, and orderables for imaging (chest x‐ray and duplex ultrasound), antiulcer prophylaxis, telemetry, and electrocardiograph were all removed.

Audit and feedback of cases of cellulitis and broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage was performed by a senior hospitalist.

Study Design

A retrospective before/after study was performed to assess overall impact of the intervention on the patient population. Additionally, a retrospective controlled pre‐/postintervention study was performed to compare changes in cellulitis management for visits where order sets were used with visits where order sets were not used. The intervention initiation date was July 9, 2012. The institutional review board classified this project as quality improvement and did not require review and oversight.

Study Population

We analyzed 2278 ED and inpatient visits for cellulitis, of which 677 met inclusion criteria. We partitioned visits into 2 groups: (1) those for which order sets were used (n = 370) and (2) control visits for which order sets were not used (n = 307). We analyzed outcomes for 2 subpopulations: hospitalized patients for whom the EDOU or admission order sets were used (n = 149) and patients not admitted and only seen in the EDOU for whom the EDOU order set was used (n = 262).

Inclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria included hospital admission or admission to the EDOU between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, age greater or equal to 18 years, and primary diagnosis of cellulitis as determined by ICD‐9‐CM billing codes 035, 457.2, 681, 681.0, 681.00, 681.01, 681.02, 681.1, 681.10, 681.11, 681.9, 680, 680.0‐9, 682.0‐9, 684, 685.0, 685.1, 686.00, 686.01, 686.09, 686.1, 686.8, 686.9, 910.1, 910.5, 910.7, 910.9, 911.1, 911.3, 911.5, 911.7, 911.9, 912.1, 912.3, 912.5, 912.7, 912.9, 913.1, 913.3, 913.5, 913.7, 913.9, 914.1, 914.3, 914.5, 914.7, 914.9, 915.1, 915.3, 915.5, 915.7, 915.9, 916.1, 916.3, 916.5, 916.7, 916.9, 917.1, 917.3, 917.5, 917.7, 917.9, 919.1, 919.3, 919.5, 919.7, or 919.9.

Data Collection and Preparation

Clinical data were collected in the inpatient EHR (Cerner Corp., Kansas City, MO) and later imported into the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) as part of the normal data flow. Billing data were imported into the EDW from the billing system. Cost data were estimated using the value‐driven outcomes (VDO) tool developed by the University of Utah to identify clinical costs to the UUHC system.[10] All data were extracted from the EDW on September 10, 2014.

Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes

We defined 1 primary outcome (use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics) and 8 secondary outcomes, including process metrics (MRI and CT orders), clinical outcomes (LOS and 30‐day readmissions), and cost outcomes (pharmacy, lab, imaging cost from radiology department, and total facility cost). Broad‐spectrum antibiotics were defined as any use of meropenem (UUHC's carbapenem), piperacillin/tazobactam, or vancomycin and were determined by orders. Thirty‐day readmissions included only inpatient encounters with the primary diagnosis of cellulitis.

Covariates

To control for patient demographics we included age at admission in years and gender into the statistical model. To control for background health state as well as cellulitis severity, we included Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and hospitalization status. CCI was calculated according to the algorithm specified by Quan et al.[11]

Study Hypotheses

First, for all patients, we hypothesized that process metrics as well as clinical and cost outcomes would improve following the implementation of the care pathway. To evaluate this hypothesis, we estimated impact of the time interval (pre‐/postintervention) on all outcomes. Second, we hypothesized that among patients for whom order sets were used (which we deemed to be a proxy for following the agreed‐upon care pathway), there would be a greater improvement than in patients for whom order sets were not used. To evaluate this hypothesis, we estimated interactions between order set use and time period (pre‐/postintervention) for all outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

The variable time period was created to represent the time period before and after the intervention.

We provided unadjusted descriptive statistics for study outcomes and visit characteristics for all patients before and after intervention. Descriptive statistics were expressed as n (%) and mean standard deviation. Simple comparisons were performed based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and t test or Wilcoxon test for continuous variables.

For before/after analysis, we fitted generalized linear regression models to estimate the change in outcomes of interest before and after intervention for all patients simultaneously. Generalized linear model defined by a binomial distributional assumption and logit link function was used to estimate the effect of the intervention on antibiotic use, imaging orders, and readmission adjusting for effects of age, gender, CCI, and hospitalization status. A generalized linear model defined by a gamma distributional assumption and log link function was used to estimate effect of the intervention on clinical LOS and cost outcomes adjusting for the effects of the same covariates. Generalized linear models with gamma distributional assumptions were used because they are known to perform well even for zero‐inflated semicontinuous cost variables and are easier to interpret than 2‐part models.

For the controlled before/after analysis, the variable order set used was created to represent groups where order sets were used or not used. Similarly, generalized linear models were used to estimate differential effect of the intervention at 2 different order set use levels using an interaction term between order set use and the time period.

P values <0.05 were considered significant. We used SAS version 9.3 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for data analysis.

RESULTS

Descriptive Characteristics

Patient characteristics before and after intervention for 677 EDOU and inpatient visits for cellulitis by 618 patients are summarized in the first 4 columns of Table 1. Patient age at admission ranged from 18 to 98 years. Thirty‐eight percent of visits were by female patients. There were 274 visits before the intervention and 403 visits after. Four hundred thirty‐two (64%) were admitted, and 295 (44%) were seen in the EDOU. The admission order set alone was used for 104 visits, the EDOU order set alone was used for 242 visits, and both order sets were used for 24 visits.

Visit Characteristics and Outcomes Pre‐/Postintervention
CharacteristicOverallOrder Sets Not UsedOrder Sets Used
Baseline, N = 274Intervention, N = 403P*Baseline, N = 127Intervention, N = 180P*Baseline, N = 147Intervention, N = 223P*
  • NOTE: Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. Due to the sensitive nature of cost data, unadjusted estimates are not shown per institutional policy. We show relative values based on baseline cost for each group. Abbreviations: ADM, admission; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CT, computed tomography; EDOU, emergency department observation unit; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not applicable. *P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and Wilcoxon or t test for continuous variables.

Patient Characteristics    
Age, y46.8 16.048.9 17.10.09749.8 16.05.1 16.30.8844.2 15.548.0 17.60.032
Female gender105 (38%)155 (39%)0.9350 (39%)74 (41%)0.7355 (37%)81 (36%)0.86
CCI2.6 3.22.6 3.00.693.2 3.53.2 3.20.822.0 2.82.1 2.70.68
Clinical process characteristics  
EDOU admission122 (45%)173 (43%)0.6812 (9%)19 (11%)0.75110 (75%)154 (69%)0.23
Hospital admission173 (63%)259 (64%)0.76117 (92%)166 (92%)0.9856 (38%)93 (42%)0.49
EDOU order set used111 (41%)155 (38%)0.59NANANA111 (76%)155 (70%)0.21
ADM order set used47 (17%)81 (20%)0.34NANANA47 (32%)81 (36%)0.39
Process outcomes   
Broad‐spectrum antibiotics used205 (75%)230 (57%)<0.00190 (71%)121 (67%)0.50115 (78%)109 (49%)<0.001
MRI done27 (10%)32 (8%)0.3913 (10%)20 (11%)0.8114 (10%)12 (5%)0.13
CT done56 (20%)76 (19%)0.6132 (25%)43 (24%)0.7924 (16%)33 (15%)0.69
Clinical outcomes  
Length of stay, d2.7 2.62.6 2.80.353.6 2.83.8 3.40.622.0 2.11.7 1.60.48
30‐day readmission14 (5%)17 (4%)0.597 (6%)9 (5%)0.847 (5%)8 (4%)0.58
Cost outcomes  
Pharmacy cost ($)10.760.00210.890.1310.560.004
Lab cost ($)10.52<0.00110.530.00110.510.055
Imaging cost ($)10.820.1110.950.5210.670.13
Total facility cost ($)10.850.02710.910.04210.770.26

Before/After Analysis

Among all patients, use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics decreased from 75% to 57% (Table 1). Analysis adjusted for gender, age at admission, CCI, and hospital admission status is provided in Table 2. Overall, there was a 59% decrease in the odds of ordering broad‐spectrum antibiotics (P < 0.001), a 23% decrease in pharmacy cost (P = 0.002), a 44% decrease in laboratory cost (P < 0.001), and a 13% decrease in total facility cost (P = 0.006).

Impact of the Intervention on Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes
Logistic Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesOdds*Percent ChangeP
Gamma Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesFold Change*Percent ChangeP
  • NOTE: *Exponentiation of the parameter for the variable represents odds for categorical variables and fold change in amount for continuous variables. Minus sign represents decrease in percent change in odds or fold change. P values are based on generalized linear models including gender, age at admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospitalization status, and time period as predictor variables.

Antibiotics usedTime period0.41 (0.29, 0.59)59% (71% to 41%)<0.001
MRI doneTime period0.74 (0.43, 1.30)26% (57% to 30%)0.29
CT doneTime period0.92 (0.62, 1.36)8% (38% to 36%)0.67
30‐day readmissionTime period0.86 (0.41, 1.80)14% (59% to 80%)0.69
Length of stay, dTime period0.97 (0.91, 1.03)3% (9% to 3%)0.34
Pharmacy cost ($)Time period0.77 (0.65, 0.91)23% (35% to 9%)0.002
Lab cost ($)Time period0.56 (0.48, 0.65)44% (52% to 35%)<0.001
Imaging cost($)Time period0.90 (0.71, 1.14)10% (29% to 14%)0.38
Total facility cost ($)Time Period0.87 (0.79, 0.96)13% (21% to 4%)0.006

Order Set Use Groups Analysis

Descriptive statistics and simple comparison before/after the intervention for the 2 study groups are shown in the last 6 columns of Table 1. Among patients for whom order sets were used, broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage significantly decreased from 78% before the intervention to 49% after the intervention (P < 0.001). In contrast, among patients for whom order sets were not used, broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage remained relatively constant71% before the intervention versus 67% after the intervention (P = 0.50). Figure 2 shows semiannual changes in the prescription of broad‐spectrum antibiotics. There is a noticeable drop after the intervention among patients for whom order sets were used.

Figure 2
Semiannual changes in broad‐spectrum antibiotic prescription rates.

Analysis of the interaction between time period and order set usage is provided in Table 3. After the intervention, patients for whom the order sets were used had greater improvement in broad‐spectrum antibiotic selection (75% decrease, P < 0.001) and LOS (25% decrease, P = 0.041) than patients for whom order sets were not used. Pharmacy costs also decreased by 13% more among patients for whom the order sets were used, although the interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.074). Laboratory costs decreased in both groups, but order set use did not demonstrate an interaction (P = 0.5). Similar results were found for the subgroups of admitted patients and patients seen in the EDOU.

Differential Impact of the Intervention on Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes in Two Order Set Use Levels
Logistic Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesOdds*Percent ChangeP
Gamma Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesFold Change*Percent ChangeP
  • * Exponentiation of the parameter for the variable represents odds for categorical variables and fold change in amount for continuous variables. Minus sign represents decrease in percent change in odds or fold change. P values are based on generalized linear models including gender, age at admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospitalization status, order set use, time period, and interaction term between time period and order set use as predictor variables.

Broad spectrum antibioticsTime period0.84 (0.50, 1.40)16% (50% to 40%)0.50
Time periodorder set0.25 (0.12, 0.52)75% (88% to 48%)<0.001
MRI doneTime period1.04 (0.49, 2.20)4% (51% to 120%)0.92
Time periodorder set0.44 (0.14, 1.38)56% (86% to 38%)0.16
CT doneTime period0.94 (0.55, 1.60)6% (45% to 60%)0.81
Time periodorder set0.96 (0.44, 2.12)4% (56% to 112%)0.93
30‐day readmissionTime period0.91 (0.33, 2.53)9% (67% to 153%)0.86
Time periodorder set0.88 (0.20, 3.93)12% (80% to 293%)0.87
Clinical length of stayTime period1.04 (0.95, 1.14)4% (5% to 14%)0.41
Time periodorder set0.87 (0.77, 0.99)13% (23% to 1%)0.041
Pharmacy cost ($)Time period0.88 (0.70, 1.12)12% (30% to 12%)0.31
Time periodorder set0.75 (0.54, 1.03)25% (46% to 3%)0.074
Lab cost ($)Time period0.53 (0.42, 0.66)47% (58% to 34%)<0.001
Time periodorder set1.11 (0.82, 1.50)11% (18% to 50%)0.50
Imaging cost ($)Time period1.00 (0.71, 1.40)0% (29% to 40%)0.98
Time periodorder set0.82 (0.51, 1.30)18% (49% to 30%)0.39
Facility cost ($)Time period0.92 (0.80, 1.05)8% (20% to 5%)0.22
Time periodorder set0.90 (0.75, 1.09)10% (25% to 9%)0.29

Audit and feedback was initially performed for cases of cellulitis using broad‐spectrum antibiotics. However, given the complexity of cellulitis as a disease process and the frequency of broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage, in all cases of review, it was deemed reasonable to use broad‐spectrum antibiotics. Therefore, the audit was not continued.

DISCUSSION

Care pathways have demonstrated improvement across multiple different disease states including cellulitis.[4, 5] They have been noted to reduce variation in practice and improve physician agreement about treatment options.[4] The best method for implementation is not clearly understood,[12] and there remains concern about maintaining flexibility for patient care.[13] Additionally, although implementation of pathways is often well described, evaluations of the processes are noted to frequently be weak.[12] UUHC felt that the literature supported implementing a care pathway for the diagnosis of cellulitis, but that a thorough evaluation was also needed to understand any resulting benefits or harms. Through this study, we found that the implementation of this pathway resulted in a significant decrease in broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, pharmacy costs, and total facility costs. There was also a trend to decrease in imaging cost, and there were no adverse effects on LOS or 30‐day readmissions. Our findings demonstrate that care‐pathway implementation accompanied by education, pathway‐compliant electronic order sets, and audit and feedback can help drive improvements in quality while reducing costs. This finding furthers the evidence supporting standard work through the creation of clinical care pathways for cellulitis as an effective intervention.[4] Additionally, although not measured in this study, reduction of antibiotic use is supported as a measure to help reduce Clostridium difficile infections, a further potential benefit.[14]

This study has several important strengths. First, we included accurate cost analyses using the VDO tool. Given the increasing importance of improving care value, we feel the inclusion of such cost analysis is an increasingly important aspect of health service intervention evaluations. Second, we used a formal benchmarking approach to identify a priority care improvement area and to monitor changes in practice following the rollout of the intervention. We feel this approach provides a useful example on how to systematically improve care quality and value in a broader health system context. Third, we evaluated not order set implementation per se, but rather changing an existing order set. Because studies in this area generally focus on initial order set implementation, our study contributes insights on what can be expected through modifications of existing order sets based on care pathways. Fourth, the analysis accounted for a variety of variables including the CCI. Of interest, our study found that the intervention group (patients for whom order sets were used) had a lower CCI, confirming Allen et al.'s findings that diseases with predictable trajectories are the most likely to benefit from care pathways.[4] As a final strength, the narrative‐based order set intervention was relatively simple, and the inclusion criteria were broad, making the process generalizable.

Limitations of this study include that it was a single center pre‐/postintervention study and not a randomized controlled trial. Related to this limitation, the control group for which order sets were not used reflected a different patient population compared to the intervention group for which order sets were used. Specifically, it was more common for order sets to be used in the EDOU than upon admission, resulting in the order set group consisting of patients with less comorbidities than patients in the nonorder set group. Additionally, patients in the order set intervention group were older than in the baseline group (48.0 vs 44.2 years). However, these differences in population remained relatively stable before and after the intervention, and relevant variables including demographic factors and CCI were accounted for in the regression models. Nevertheless, it remains possible that secular trends existed that we did not capture that affected the 2 populations differently. For example, there was a separate project that overlapped with the intervention period to reduce unnecessary laboratory usage at UUHC. This intervention could have influenced the trend to decreased laboratory utilization in the postintervention period. However, there were no concurrent initiatives to reduce antibiotic use during the study period. As a final limitation, the statistical analyses have not corrected for multiple testing for the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Using benchmark data from UHC, an academic medical center was able to identify an opportunity for improving the care of patients with cellulitis and subsequently develop an evidence‐based care pathway. The implementation of this pathway correlated with a significant reduction of broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, pharmacy costs, and total facility costs without adverse clinical affects. An important factor in the success of the intervention was the use of electronic order sets for cellulitis, which provided support for the implementation of the care pathway. This study demonstrates that the intervention was not only effective overall, but that it was more effective for those patients for whom the order set was used. This study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that a well‐defined care pathway can improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients and institutions.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. Pam Proctor for her assistance in implementation of the care pathway and Ms. Selma Lopez for her editorial assistance.

Disclosures: K.K. is or has been a consultant on clinical decision support (CDS) or electronic clinical quality measurement to the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, ARUP Laboratories, McKesson InterQual, ESAC, Inc., JBS International, Inc., Inflexxion, Inc., Intelligent Automation, Inc., Partners HealthCare, Mayo Clinic, and the RAND Corporation. K.K. receives royalties for a Duke Universityowned CDS technology for infectious disease management known as CustomID that he helped develop. K.K. was formerly a consultant for Religent, Inc. and a co‐owner and consultant for Clinica Software, Inc., both of which provide commercial CDS services, including through use of a CDS technology known as SEBASTIAN that K.K. developed. K.K. no longer has a financial relationship with either Religent or Clinica Software. K.K. has no competing interest with any specific product or intervention evaluated in this manuscript. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Cellulitis is a common infection causing inflammation of the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Cellulitis has been attributed to gram‐positive organisms through historical evaluations including fine‐needle aspirates and punch biopsies of the infected tissue.[1] Neither of these diagnostic tests is currently used due to their invasiveness, poor diagnostic yield, and availability. Similarly, readily available tests such as blood cultures provide an etiology <5% of the time[1] and are not cost‐effective for most patients for diagnosing cellulitis.[2] In addition, the prevalence of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has steadily increased, complicating decisions about antibiotic selection.[3] The result of this uncertainty is a large variation in practice with respect to antibiotic and imaging selection for patients with a diagnosis of cellulitis.

University of Utah Health Care (UUHC) performed benchmarking for the management of cellulitis using the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database and associated CareFx analytics tool. Benchmarking demonstrated that UUHC had a greater percentage of broad‐spectrum antibiotic use (defined as vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, or carbapenems) than the top 5 performing UHC facilities for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐9‐CM) diagnoses of cellulitis (vancomycin 83% vs 58% and carbapenem or piperacillin/tazobactam 44% vs 16%). Advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) for the diagnosis of cellulitis was also found to be an opportunity for improvement (CT 27% vs 20% and MRI 8% vs 5%). The hospitalist group (most patients admitted with cellulitis were on this service) believed these data reflected current practice, as there was no standard of treatment for cellulitis despite an active order set. Therefore, cellulitis was considered an opportunity to improve value to our patients. A standardized clinical care pathway was created, as such pathways have demonstrated a reduction in variation in practice and improved efficiency and effectiveness of care for multiple disease states including cellulitis.[4, 5] We hypothesized that implementation of an evidence‐based care pathway would decrease broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, cost, and use of advanced imaging without having any adverse effects on clinical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS) or readmission.

METHODS

Study Setting and Population

UUHC is a 500‐bed academic medical center in Salt Lake City, Utah. All patients admitted to the emergency department observation unit (EDOU) or the hospital with a primary ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis of cellulitis between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 were evaluated.

Intervention

Initial steps involved the formation of a multidisciplinary team including key stakeholders from the hospitalist group, infectious diseases, the emergency department (ED), and nursing. This multidisciplinary team was charged with developing a clinical care pathway appropriate for local implementation. National guidance for the care pathway was mainly obtained from the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs)[6] and MRSA.[7] Specific attention was paid to recommendations on blood cultures (only when systemically ill), imaging (rarely needed), antibiotic selection (rarely gram‐negative coverage and consideration of MRSA coverage), and patient‐care principles that are often overlooked (elevation of the affected extremity). A distinction of purulent versus nonpurulent cellulitis was adopted based on the guidelines and a prospective evaluation of the care of patients with nonpurulent cellulitis.[8] The 2014 IDSA update on SSTIs incorporates this distinction more clearly in hopes of determining staphylococcal versus streptococcal infections.[9] After multiple iterations, an agreed‐upon care pathway was created that excluded patients with neutropenia, osteomyelitis, diabetic foot ulcerations; hand, perineal, periorbital, or surgical site infections; and human or animal bites (Figure 1). After the care pathway was determined, interventions were performed to implement this change.

Figure 1
Cellulitis care pathway. DM, diabetes mellitus; ECU, emergency care unit; ED, emergency department; GU, genitourinary; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; ID, infectious disease; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; s/p, status post; SMX, sulfamethoxazole; s/s, signs and symptoms; TMP, trimethoprim; Vanc, vancomycin.

Education of all providers involved included discussion of cellulitis as a disease process, presentation of benchmarking data, dissemination of the care pathway to hospitalist and ED physicians, teaching conferences for internal medicine residents and ED residents, and reinforcement of these concepts at the beginning of resident rotations.

Incorporation of the care pathway into the existing electronic order sets for cellulitis care in the inpatient and ED settings, with links to the care pathway, links to excluded disease processes (eg, hand cellulitis), preselection of commonly needed items (eg, elevate leg), and recommendations for antibiotic selection based on categories of purulent or nonpurulent cellulitis. The electronic health record (EHR) did not allow for forced order set usage, so the order set required selection by the admitting physician if indicated. Additionally, an embedded 48‐hour order set could be accessed at any time by the ordering physician and included vancomycin dosing. Specific changes to the preexisting order set included the development of sections for purulent and nonpurulent cellulitis as well as recommended antibiotics. Piperacillin/tazobactam and nafcillin were both removed and vancomycin was limited to the purulent subheading. Additionally, elevation of the extremity was preselected, and orderables for imaging (chest x‐ray and duplex ultrasound), antiulcer prophylaxis, telemetry, and electrocardiograph were all removed.

Audit and feedback of cases of cellulitis and broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage was performed by a senior hospitalist.

Study Design

A retrospective before/after study was performed to assess overall impact of the intervention on the patient population. Additionally, a retrospective controlled pre‐/postintervention study was performed to compare changes in cellulitis management for visits where order sets were used with visits where order sets were not used. The intervention initiation date was July 9, 2012. The institutional review board classified this project as quality improvement and did not require review and oversight.

Study Population

We analyzed 2278 ED and inpatient visits for cellulitis, of which 677 met inclusion criteria. We partitioned visits into 2 groups: (1) those for which order sets were used (n = 370) and (2) control visits for which order sets were not used (n = 307). We analyzed outcomes for 2 subpopulations: hospitalized patients for whom the EDOU or admission order sets were used (n = 149) and patients not admitted and only seen in the EDOU for whom the EDOU order set was used (n = 262).

Inclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria included hospital admission or admission to the EDOU between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, age greater or equal to 18 years, and primary diagnosis of cellulitis as determined by ICD‐9‐CM billing codes 035, 457.2, 681, 681.0, 681.00, 681.01, 681.02, 681.1, 681.10, 681.11, 681.9, 680, 680.0‐9, 682.0‐9, 684, 685.0, 685.1, 686.00, 686.01, 686.09, 686.1, 686.8, 686.9, 910.1, 910.5, 910.7, 910.9, 911.1, 911.3, 911.5, 911.7, 911.9, 912.1, 912.3, 912.5, 912.7, 912.9, 913.1, 913.3, 913.5, 913.7, 913.9, 914.1, 914.3, 914.5, 914.7, 914.9, 915.1, 915.3, 915.5, 915.7, 915.9, 916.1, 916.3, 916.5, 916.7, 916.9, 917.1, 917.3, 917.5, 917.7, 917.9, 919.1, 919.3, 919.5, 919.7, or 919.9.

Data Collection and Preparation

Clinical data were collected in the inpatient EHR (Cerner Corp., Kansas City, MO) and later imported into the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) as part of the normal data flow. Billing data were imported into the EDW from the billing system. Cost data were estimated using the value‐driven outcomes (VDO) tool developed by the University of Utah to identify clinical costs to the UUHC system.[10] All data were extracted from the EDW on September 10, 2014.

Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes

We defined 1 primary outcome (use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics) and 8 secondary outcomes, including process metrics (MRI and CT orders), clinical outcomes (LOS and 30‐day readmissions), and cost outcomes (pharmacy, lab, imaging cost from radiology department, and total facility cost). Broad‐spectrum antibiotics were defined as any use of meropenem (UUHC's carbapenem), piperacillin/tazobactam, or vancomycin and were determined by orders. Thirty‐day readmissions included only inpatient encounters with the primary diagnosis of cellulitis.

Covariates

To control for patient demographics we included age at admission in years and gender into the statistical model. To control for background health state as well as cellulitis severity, we included Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and hospitalization status. CCI was calculated according to the algorithm specified by Quan et al.[11]

Study Hypotheses

First, for all patients, we hypothesized that process metrics as well as clinical and cost outcomes would improve following the implementation of the care pathway. To evaluate this hypothesis, we estimated impact of the time interval (pre‐/postintervention) on all outcomes. Second, we hypothesized that among patients for whom order sets were used (which we deemed to be a proxy for following the agreed‐upon care pathway), there would be a greater improvement than in patients for whom order sets were not used. To evaluate this hypothesis, we estimated interactions between order set use and time period (pre‐/postintervention) for all outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

The variable time period was created to represent the time period before and after the intervention.

We provided unadjusted descriptive statistics for study outcomes and visit characteristics for all patients before and after intervention. Descriptive statistics were expressed as n (%) and mean standard deviation. Simple comparisons were performed based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and t test or Wilcoxon test for continuous variables.

For before/after analysis, we fitted generalized linear regression models to estimate the change in outcomes of interest before and after intervention for all patients simultaneously. Generalized linear model defined by a binomial distributional assumption and logit link function was used to estimate the effect of the intervention on antibiotic use, imaging orders, and readmission adjusting for effects of age, gender, CCI, and hospitalization status. A generalized linear model defined by a gamma distributional assumption and log link function was used to estimate effect of the intervention on clinical LOS and cost outcomes adjusting for the effects of the same covariates. Generalized linear models with gamma distributional assumptions were used because they are known to perform well even for zero‐inflated semicontinuous cost variables and are easier to interpret than 2‐part models.

For the controlled before/after analysis, the variable order set used was created to represent groups where order sets were used or not used. Similarly, generalized linear models were used to estimate differential effect of the intervention at 2 different order set use levels using an interaction term between order set use and the time period.

P values <0.05 were considered significant. We used SAS version 9.3 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for data analysis.

RESULTS

Descriptive Characteristics

Patient characteristics before and after intervention for 677 EDOU and inpatient visits for cellulitis by 618 patients are summarized in the first 4 columns of Table 1. Patient age at admission ranged from 18 to 98 years. Thirty‐eight percent of visits were by female patients. There were 274 visits before the intervention and 403 visits after. Four hundred thirty‐two (64%) were admitted, and 295 (44%) were seen in the EDOU. The admission order set alone was used for 104 visits, the EDOU order set alone was used for 242 visits, and both order sets were used for 24 visits.

Visit Characteristics and Outcomes Pre‐/Postintervention
CharacteristicOverallOrder Sets Not UsedOrder Sets Used
Baseline, N = 274Intervention, N = 403P*Baseline, N = 127Intervention, N = 180P*Baseline, N = 147Intervention, N = 223P*
  • NOTE: Values are expressed as n (%) or mean standard deviation. Due to the sensitive nature of cost data, unadjusted estimates are not shown per institutional policy. We show relative values based on baseline cost for each group. Abbreviations: ADM, admission; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CT, computed tomography; EDOU, emergency department observation unit; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not applicable. *P values are based on 2 test of homogeneity for categorical variables and Wilcoxon or t test for continuous variables.

Patient Characteristics    
Age, y46.8 16.048.9 17.10.09749.8 16.05.1 16.30.8844.2 15.548.0 17.60.032
Female gender105 (38%)155 (39%)0.9350 (39%)74 (41%)0.7355 (37%)81 (36%)0.86
CCI2.6 3.22.6 3.00.693.2 3.53.2 3.20.822.0 2.82.1 2.70.68
Clinical process characteristics  
EDOU admission122 (45%)173 (43%)0.6812 (9%)19 (11%)0.75110 (75%)154 (69%)0.23
Hospital admission173 (63%)259 (64%)0.76117 (92%)166 (92%)0.9856 (38%)93 (42%)0.49
EDOU order set used111 (41%)155 (38%)0.59NANANA111 (76%)155 (70%)0.21
ADM order set used47 (17%)81 (20%)0.34NANANA47 (32%)81 (36%)0.39
Process outcomes   
Broad‐spectrum antibiotics used205 (75%)230 (57%)<0.00190 (71%)121 (67%)0.50115 (78%)109 (49%)<0.001
MRI done27 (10%)32 (8%)0.3913 (10%)20 (11%)0.8114 (10%)12 (5%)0.13
CT done56 (20%)76 (19%)0.6132 (25%)43 (24%)0.7924 (16%)33 (15%)0.69
Clinical outcomes  
Length of stay, d2.7 2.62.6 2.80.353.6 2.83.8 3.40.622.0 2.11.7 1.60.48
30‐day readmission14 (5%)17 (4%)0.597 (6%)9 (5%)0.847 (5%)8 (4%)0.58
Cost outcomes  
Pharmacy cost ($)10.760.00210.890.1310.560.004
Lab cost ($)10.52<0.00110.530.00110.510.055
Imaging cost ($)10.820.1110.950.5210.670.13
Total facility cost ($)10.850.02710.910.04210.770.26

Before/After Analysis

Among all patients, use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics decreased from 75% to 57% (Table 1). Analysis adjusted for gender, age at admission, CCI, and hospital admission status is provided in Table 2. Overall, there was a 59% decrease in the odds of ordering broad‐spectrum antibiotics (P < 0.001), a 23% decrease in pharmacy cost (P = 0.002), a 44% decrease in laboratory cost (P < 0.001), and a 13% decrease in total facility cost (P = 0.006).

Impact of the Intervention on Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes
Logistic Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesOdds*Percent ChangeP
Gamma Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesFold Change*Percent ChangeP
  • NOTE: *Exponentiation of the parameter for the variable represents odds for categorical variables and fold change in amount for continuous variables. Minus sign represents decrease in percent change in odds or fold change. P values are based on generalized linear models including gender, age at admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospitalization status, and time period as predictor variables.

Antibiotics usedTime period0.41 (0.29, 0.59)59% (71% to 41%)<0.001
MRI doneTime period0.74 (0.43, 1.30)26% (57% to 30%)0.29
CT doneTime period0.92 (0.62, 1.36)8% (38% to 36%)0.67
30‐day readmissionTime period0.86 (0.41, 1.80)14% (59% to 80%)0.69
Length of stay, dTime period0.97 (0.91, 1.03)3% (9% to 3%)0.34
Pharmacy cost ($)Time period0.77 (0.65, 0.91)23% (35% to 9%)0.002
Lab cost ($)Time period0.56 (0.48, 0.65)44% (52% to 35%)<0.001
Imaging cost($)Time period0.90 (0.71, 1.14)10% (29% to 14%)0.38
Total facility cost ($)Time Period0.87 (0.79, 0.96)13% (21% to 4%)0.006

Order Set Use Groups Analysis

Descriptive statistics and simple comparison before/after the intervention for the 2 study groups are shown in the last 6 columns of Table 1. Among patients for whom order sets were used, broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage significantly decreased from 78% before the intervention to 49% after the intervention (P < 0.001). In contrast, among patients for whom order sets were not used, broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage remained relatively constant71% before the intervention versus 67% after the intervention (P = 0.50). Figure 2 shows semiannual changes in the prescription of broad‐spectrum antibiotics. There is a noticeable drop after the intervention among patients for whom order sets were used.

Figure 2
Semiannual changes in broad‐spectrum antibiotic prescription rates.

Analysis of the interaction between time period and order set usage is provided in Table 3. After the intervention, patients for whom the order sets were used had greater improvement in broad‐spectrum antibiotic selection (75% decrease, P < 0.001) and LOS (25% decrease, P = 0.041) than patients for whom order sets were not used. Pharmacy costs also decreased by 13% more among patients for whom the order sets were used, although the interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.074). Laboratory costs decreased in both groups, but order set use did not demonstrate an interaction (P = 0.5). Similar results were found for the subgroups of admitted patients and patients seen in the EDOU.

Differential Impact of the Intervention on Process Metrics, Clinical, and Cost Outcomes in Two Order Set Use Levels
Logistic Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesOdds*Percent ChangeP
Gamma Regression
Outcome VariablesSelected Predictor VariablesFold Change*Percent ChangeP
  • * Exponentiation of the parameter for the variable represents odds for categorical variables and fold change in amount for continuous variables. Minus sign represents decrease in percent change in odds or fold change. P values are based on generalized linear models including gender, age at admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospitalization status, order set use, time period, and interaction term between time period and order set use as predictor variables.

Broad spectrum antibioticsTime period0.84 (0.50, 1.40)16% (50% to 40%)0.50
Time periodorder set0.25 (0.12, 0.52)75% (88% to 48%)<0.001
MRI doneTime period1.04 (0.49, 2.20)4% (51% to 120%)0.92
Time periodorder set0.44 (0.14, 1.38)56% (86% to 38%)0.16
CT doneTime period0.94 (0.55, 1.60)6% (45% to 60%)0.81
Time periodorder set0.96 (0.44, 2.12)4% (56% to 112%)0.93
30‐day readmissionTime period0.91 (0.33, 2.53)9% (67% to 153%)0.86
Time periodorder set0.88 (0.20, 3.93)12% (80% to 293%)0.87
Clinical length of stayTime period1.04 (0.95, 1.14)4% (5% to 14%)0.41
Time periodorder set0.87 (0.77, 0.99)13% (23% to 1%)0.041
Pharmacy cost ($)Time period0.88 (0.70, 1.12)12% (30% to 12%)0.31
Time periodorder set0.75 (0.54, 1.03)25% (46% to 3%)0.074
Lab cost ($)Time period0.53 (0.42, 0.66)47% (58% to 34%)<0.001
Time periodorder set1.11 (0.82, 1.50)11% (18% to 50%)0.50
Imaging cost ($)Time period1.00 (0.71, 1.40)0% (29% to 40%)0.98
Time periodorder set0.82 (0.51, 1.30)18% (49% to 30%)0.39
Facility cost ($)Time period0.92 (0.80, 1.05)8% (20% to 5%)0.22
Time periodorder set0.90 (0.75, 1.09)10% (25% to 9%)0.29

Audit and feedback was initially performed for cases of cellulitis using broad‐spectrum antibiotics. However, given the complexity of cellulitis as a disease process and the frequency of broad‐spectrum antibiotic usage, in all cases of review, it was deemed reasonable to use broad‐spectrum antibiotics. Therefore, the audit was not continued.

DISCUSSION

Care pathways have demonstrated improvement across multiple different disease states including cellulitis.[4, 5] They have been noted to reduce variation in practice and improve physician agreement about treatment options.[4] The best method for implementation is not clearly understood,[12] and there remains concern about maintaining flexibility for patient care.[13] Additionally, although implementation of pathways is often well described, evaluations of the processes are noted to frequently be weak.[12] UUHC felt that the literature supported implementing a care pathway for the diagnosis of cellulitis, but that a thorough evaluation was also needed to understand any resulting benefits or harms. Through this study, we found that the implementation of this pathway resulted in a significant decrease in broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, pharmacy costs, and total facility costs. There was also a trend to decrease in imaging cost, and there were no adverse effects on LOS or 30‐day readmissions. Our findings demonstrate that care‐pathway implementation accompanied by education, pathway‐compliant electronic order sets, and audit and feedback can help drive improvements in quality while reducing costs. This finding furthers the evidence supporting standard work through the creation of clinical care pathways for cellulitis as an effective intervention.[4] Additionally, although not measured in this study, reduction of antibiotic use is supported as a measure to help reduce Clostridium difficile infections, a further potential benefit.[14]

This study has several important strengths. First, we included accurate cost analyses using the VDO tool. Given the increasing importance of improving care value, we feel the inclusion of such cost analysis is an increasingly important aspect of health service intervention evaluations. Second, we used a formal benchmarking approach to identify a priority care improvement area and to monitor changes in practice following the rollout of the intervention. We feel this approach provides a useful example on how to systematically improve care quality and value in a broader health system context. Third, we evaluated not order set implementation per se, but rather changing an existing order set. Because studies in this area generally focus on initial order set implementation, our study contributes insights on what can be expected through modifications of existing order sets based on care pathways. Fourth, the analysis accounted for a variety of variables including the CCI. Of interest, our study found that the intervention group (patients for whom order sets were used) had a lower CCI, confirming Allen et al.'s findings that diseases with predictable trajectories are the most likely to benefit from care pathways.[4] As a final strength, the narrative‐based order set intervention was relatively simple, and the inclusion criteria were broad, making the process generalizable.

Limitations of this study include that it was a single center pre‐/postintervention study and not a randomized controlled trial. Related to this limitation, the control group for which order sets were not used reflected a different patient population compared to the intervention group for which order sets were used. Specifically, it was more common for order sets to be used in the EDOU than upon admission, resulting in the order set group consisting of patients with less comorbidities than patients in the nonorder set group. Additionally, patients in the order set intervention group were older than in the baseline group (48.0 vs 44.2 years). However, these differences in population remained relatively stable before and after the intervention, and relevant variables including demographic factors and CCI were accounted for in the regression models. Nevertheless, it remains possible that secular trends existed that we did not capture that affected the 2 populations differently. For example, there was a separate project that overlapped with the intervention period to reduce unnecessary laboratory usage at UUHC. This intervention could have influenced the trend to decreased laboratory utilization in the postintervention period. However, there were no concurrent initiatives to reduce antibiotic use during the study period. As a final limitation, the statistical analyses have not corrected for multiple testing for the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Using benchmark data from UHC, an academic medical center was able to identify an opportunity for improving the care of patients with cellulitis and subsequently develop an evidence‐based care pathway. The implementation of this pathway correlated with a significant reduction of broad‐spectrum antibiotic use, pharmacy costs, and total facility costs without adverse clinical affects. An important factor in the success of the intervention was the use of electronic order sets for cellulitis, which provided support for the implementation of the care pathway. This study demonstrates that the intervention was not only effective overall, but that it was more effective for those patients for whom the order set was used. This study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that a well‐defined care pathway can improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients and institutions.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. Pam Proctor for her assistance in implementation of the care pathway and Ms. Selma Lopez for her editorial assistance.

Disclosures: K.K. is or has been a consultant on clinical decision support (CDS) or electronic clinical quality measurement to the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, ARUP Laboratories, McKesson InterQual, ESAC, Inc., JBS International, Inc., Inflexxion, Inc., Intelligent Automation, Inc., Partners HealthCare, Mayo Clinic, and the RAND Corporation. K.K. receives royalties for a Duke Universityowned CDS technology for infectious disease management known as CustomID that he helped develop. K.K. was formerly a consultant for Religent, Inc. and a co‐owner and consultant for Clinica Software, Inc., both of which provide commercial CDS services, including through use of a CDS technology known as SEBASTIAN that K.K. developed. K.K. no longer has a financial relationship with either Religent or Clinica Software. K.K. has no competing interest with any specific product or intervention evaluated in this manuscript. All other authors declare no competing interests.

References
  1. Swartz MN. Cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(9):904912.
  2. Perl B, Gottehrer N, Raveh D, Schlesinger Y, Rudensky B, Yinnon A. Cost‐effectiveness of blood cultures for adult patients with cellulitis. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29(6):14831488.
  3. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Methicillin‐resistant s. aureus infectious among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:666674.
  4. Allen D, Gillen E, Rixson L. Systematic review of the effectiveness of integrated care pathways: what works, for whom, in which circumstances? Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7:6174.
  5. Jenkins TC. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(12):10721079.
  6. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft‐tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:13731406.
  7. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Disease Society of American for the treatment of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus infectious in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;42:138.
  8. Jeng A, Beheshti M, Li J, Nathan R. The role of b‐hemolytic streptococci in causing diffuse, nonculturable cellulitis. Medicine. 2010;89:217226.
  9. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Disease Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):147159.
  10. Kawamoto K, Martin CJ, Williams K, et al. Value driven outcomes (VDO): a pragmatic, modular, and extensible software framework for understanding and improving health care costs and outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(1):223235.
  11. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1131139.
  12. Gooch P, Roudsari A. Computerization of workflows, guidelines, and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process‐oriented health information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:738748.
  13. Farias M, Jenkins K, Lock J, et al. Standardized clinical assessment and management plans (SCAMPs) provide a better alternative to clinical practice guidelines. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32(5):911920.
  14. Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:431455.
References
  1. Swartz MN. Cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(9):904912.
  2. Perl B, Gottehrer N, Raveh D, Schlesinger Y, Rudensky B, Yinnon A. Cost‐effectiveness of blood cultures for adult patients with cellulitis. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29(6):14831488.
  3. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Methicillin‐resistant s. aureus infectious among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:666674.
  4. Allen D, Gillen E, Rixson L. Systematic review of the effectiveness of integrated care pathways: what works, for whom, in which circumstances? Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7:6174.
  5. Jenkins TC. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(12):10721079.
  6. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft‐tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:13731406.
  7. Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Disease Society of American for the treatment of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus infectious in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;42:138.
  8. Jeng A, Beheshti M, Li J, Nathan R. The role of b‐hemolytic streptococci in causing diffuse, nonculturable cellulitis. Medicine. 2010;89:217226.
  9. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Disease Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):147159.
  10. Kawamoto K, Martin CJ, Williams K, et al. Value driven outcomes (VDO): a pragmatic, modular, and extensible software framework for understanding and improving health care costs and outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(1):223235.
  11. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1131139.
  12. Gooch P, Roudsari A. Computerization of workflows, guidelines, and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process‐oriented health information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:738748.
  13. Farias M, Jenkins K, Lock J, et al. Standardized clinical assessment and management plans (SCAMPs) provide a better alternative to clinical practice guidelines. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32(5):911920.
  14. Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:431455.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(12)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(12)
Page Number
780-786
Page Number
780-786
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Evidence‐based care pathway for cellulitis improves process, clinical, and cost outcomes
Display Headline
Evidence‐based care pathway for cellulitis improves process, clinical, and cost outcomes
Sections
Article Source

© 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Peter M. Yarbrough, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 50 North Medical Drive, Room 5R218, Salt Lake City, UT 84132; Telephone: 801‐581‐7822; Fax: 801‐585‐9166; E‐mail: peter.yarbrough@hsc.utah.edu
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media
Media Files