Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 10, pp 1639–1645 | Cite as

Effect of Social Comparison Feedback on Laboratory Test Ordering for Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Kira Ryskina
  • C. Jessica Dine
  • Yevgeniy Gitelman
  • Damien Leri
  • Mitesh Patel
  • Gregory Kurtzman
  • Lisa Y. Lin
  • Andrew J. Epstein
Original Research

Abstract

Background

Social comparison feedback is an increasingly popular strategy that uses performance report cards to modify physician behavior. Our objective was to test the effect of such feedback on the ordering of routine laboratory tests for hospitalized patients, a practice considered overused.

Methods

This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Between January and June 2016, physicians on six general medicine teams at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania were cluster randomized with equal allocation to two arms: (1) those e-mailed a summary of their routine laboratory test ordering vs. the service average for the prior week, linked to a continuously updated personalized dashboard containing patient-level details, and snapshot of the dashboard and (2) those who did not receive the intervention. The primary outcome was the count of routine laboratory test orders placed by a physician per patient-day. We modeled the count of orders by each physician per patient-day after the intervention as a function of trial arm and the physician’s order count before the intervention. The count outcome was modeled using negative binomial models with adjustment for clustering within teams.

Results

One hundred and fourteen interns and residents participated. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in adjusted reduction in routine laboratory ordering between the intervention and control physicians (physicians in the intervention group ordered 0.14 fewer tests per patient-day than physicians in the control group, 95% CI − 0.56 to 0.27, p = 0.50). Physicians whose absolute ordering rate deviated from the peer rate by more than 1.0 laboratory test per patient-day reduced their laboratory ordering by 0.80 orders per patient-day (95% CI − 1.58 to − 0.02, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Personalized social comparison feedback on routine laboratory ordering did not change targeted behavior among physicians, although there was a significant decrease in orders among participants who deviated more from the peer rate.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov registration: #NCT02330289.

Notes

Funding Information

This work was supported in part by Career Development Award K08AG052572 (Dr. Ryskina) and the Matt Slap Pilot Research Award from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study with a waiver of written documentation of consent

Conflict of Interest

Mitesh Patel is principal at Catalyst Health, a technology and behavior change consulting firm, and an advisory board member at Healthmine Services Inc. and Life.io. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4482_MOESM1_ESM.docx (694 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 694 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513–1516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dixon RH, Laszlo J. Utilization of clinical chemistry services by medical house staff. An analysis. Arch Intern Med. 1974;134(6):1064–1067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axt-Adam P, van der Wouden JC, van der Does E. Influencing behavior of physicians ordering laboratory tests: a literature study. Med Care. 1993;31(9):784–794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sedrak MS, Myers JS, Small DS, et al. Effect of a price transparency intervention in the electronic health record on clinician ordering of inpatient laboratory tests: the PRICE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(7):939–945.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fogarty AW, Sturrock N, Premji K, Prinsloo P. Hospital clinicians’ responsiveness to assay cost feedback: a prospective blinded controlled intervention study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(17):1654–1655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin AR, Wolf MA, Thibodeau LA, Dzau V, Braunwald E. A trial of two strategies to modify the test-ordering behavior of medical residents. N Engl J Med. 1980;303(23):1330–1336.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schroeder SA, Myers LP, McPhee SJ, et al. The failure of physician education as a cost containment strategy. Report of a prospective controlled trial at a university hospital. JAMA. 1984;252(2):225–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):903–908.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106(2):144–150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Young DW. Improving laboratory usage: a review. Postgrad Med J. 1988;64(750):283–289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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(16):1885–1890.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(11):e78962.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schroeder SA. Can physicians change their laboratory test ordering behavior? A new look at an old issue. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(17):1655–1656.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sedrak MS, Patel MS, Ziemba JB, et al. Residents’ self-report on why they order perceived unnecessary inpatient laboratory tests. J Hosp Med. 2016.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emanuel EJ, Ubel PA, Kessler JB, et al. Using behavioral economics to design physician incentives that deliver high-value care. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(2):114–119.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meeker D, Linder JA, Fox CR, et al. Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(6):562–570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Persell SD, Doctor JN, Friedberg MW, et al. Behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a randomized pilot trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Navathe AS, Emanuel EJ. Physician peer comparisons as a nonfinancial strategy to improve the value of care. JAMA. 2016;316(17):1759–1760.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rolnick JR, Ryskina KL. The use of individual provider performance reports by U.S. hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2018;in press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iams W, Heck J, Kapp M, et al. A multidisciplinary housestaff-led initiative to safely reduce daily laboratory testing. Acad Med. 2016;91(6):813–820.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patel MS, Volpp KG, Small DS, et al. Association of the 2011 ACGME resident duty hour reforms with mortality and readmissions among hospitalized Medicare patients. JAMA. 2014;312(22):2364–2373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurtzman G DJ, Epstein A, Gitelman Y, Leri D, Patel MS, Ryskina KL. Internal medicine resident engagement with a laboratory utilization dashboard: mixed methods study. J Hosp Med. 2017.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dine CJ, Miller J, Fuld A, Bellini LM, Iwashyna TJ. Educating physicians-in-training about resource utilization and their own outcomes of care in the inpatient setting. J Grad Med Educ. 2010;2(2):175–180.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ. 2001;323(7321):1123–1124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sey MSL, Liu A, Asfaha S, Siebring V, Jairath V, Yan B. Performance report cards increase adenoma detection rate. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5(7):E675-E682.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ACGME. ACGME Common Program Requirements. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education;2017.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sood R, Sood A, Ghosh AK. Non-evidence-based variables affecting physicians’ test-ordering tendencies: a systematic review. Neth J Med. 2007;65(5):167–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ryskina KL, Pesko MF, Gossey JT, Caesar EP, Bishop TF. Brand name statin prescribing in a resident ambulatory practice: implications for teaching cost-conscious medicine. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(3):484–488.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ryskina KL, Dine CJ, Kim EJ, Bishop TF, Epstein AJ. The effect of attending practice style on generic medication prescribing by residents in the clinic setting. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30(9):1286–1293.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dine CJ, Bellini LM, Diemer G, et al. Assessing correlations of physicians’ practice intensity and certainty during residency training. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(4):603–609.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Iturrate E, Jubelt L, Volpicelli F, Hochman K. Optimize your electronic medical record to increase value: reducing laboratory overutilization. Am J Med. 2016;129(2):215–220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neilson EG, Johnson KB, Rosenbloom ST, et al. The impact of peer management on test-ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(3):196–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stammen LA, Stalmeijer RE, Paternotte E, et al. Training physicians to provide high-value, cost-conscious care: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314(22):2384–2400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kira Ryskina
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Jessica Dine
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yevgeniy Gitelman
    • 4
    • 5
  • Damien Leri
    • 4
  • Mitesh Patel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • Gregory Kurtzman
    • 1
  • Lisa Y. Lin
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Epstein
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineUniversity of Pennsylvania Perelman School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Leonard Davis Institute of Health EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of MedicineUniversity of Pennsylvania Perelman School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Penn Medicine Center for Health Care InnovationPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations