Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Objectives: Diagnostic errors, that is, missed, delayed, or wrong diagnoses, are a common type of medical errors and preventable iatrogenic harm. Errors in the laboratory testing process can lead to diagnostic errors. This retrospective analysis of voluntary incident reports aimed to investigate the nature, causes, and clinical impact of errors, including diagnostic errors, in the clinical laboratory testing process. Methods: We used a sample of 600 voluntary incident reports concerning diagnostic testing selected from all incident reports filed at the University Medical Center Utrecht in 2017–2018. From these incident reports, we included all reports concerning the clinical laboratory testing process. For these incidents, we determined the following: nature: in which phase of the testing process the error occurred; cause: human, technical, organizational; and clinical impact: the type and severity of the harm to the patient, including diagnostic error. Results: Three hundred twenty-seven reports were included in the analysis. In 77.1%, the error occurred in the preanalytical phase, 13.5% in the analytical phase and 8.0% in the postanalytical phase (1.5% undetermined). Human factors were the most frequent cause (58.7%). Severe clinical impact occurred relatively more often in the analytical and postanalytical phase, 32% and 28%, respectively, compared with the preanalytical phase (40%). In 195 cases (60%), there was a potential diagnostic error as consequence, mainly a potential delay in the diagnostic process (50.5%). Conclusions: Errors in the laboratory testing process often lead to potential diagnostic errors. Although prone to incomplete information on causes and clinical impact, voluntary incident reports are a valuable source for research on diagnostic error related to errors in the clinical laboratory testing process.

Electronic health records (EHRs) contain valuable data for reuse in science, quality evaluations, and clinical decision support. Because routinely obtained laboratory data are abundantly present, often numeric, generated by certified laboratories, and stored in a structured way, one may assume that they are immediately fit for (re)use in research. However, behind each test result lies an extensive context of choices and considerations, made by both humans and machines, that introduces hidden patterns in the data. If they are unaware, researchers reusing routine laboratory data may eventually draw incorrect conclusions. In this paper, after discussing health care system characteristics on both the macro and micro level, we introduce the reader to hidden aspects of generating structured routine laboratory data in 4 steps (ordering, preanalysis, analysis, and postanalysis) and explain how each of these steps may interfere with the reuse of routine laboratory data. As researchers reusing these data, we underline the importance of domain knowledge of the health care professional, laboratory specialist, data manager, and patient to turn routine laboratory data into meaningful data sets to help obtain relevant insights that create value for clinical care.

Background: Appropriate use of diagnostic laboratory tests is challenging, and estimates of 20% for overutilization and 45% for underutilization have been reported. Introducing effective and sustainable solutions to stimulate optimal use of laboratory testing in clinical practice is a challenge. A recent pilot study from our group, focusing on increasing the awareness about appropriate laboratory testing with the aim of changing the mindset of health care workers, has shown promising results. In this project, we aim to extend this multistep intervention to the internal medicine departments of 4 large Dutch hospitals. We aim to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing by 5%. Objective: Our primary objective is to determine the effect of our intervention on diagnostic laboratory test order volume. Our secondary objectives are to determine the effect of our intervention on laboratory expenditure and order volumes, expenditures for other diagnostic modalities, and clinical patient outcomes. We will also analyze the barriers and facilitators for deimplementation of unnecessary laboratory testing. Methods: The main interventions of this before-after study will be an intensified supervision of residents by experienced physicians regarding test ordering, creating awareness through education and monthly feedback on ordering patterns, and changes in (computerized) order entry systems. Results: At the time of publication of this protocol, the project is in the phase of data collection. We expect to present data on reduction early in the fourth quarter of 2018. Conclusions: In this project, we aim to reduce the unnecessary diagnostic testing in the internal medicine departments of 4 teaching hospitals. Although the main interventions will be similar, each clinic is given the opportunity to focus on the specific facets of the interventions as deemed useful according to the local situation. If effective, the study provides a framework for a nationwide initiative for reducing inappropriate laboratory testing. Registered Report Identifier: RR1-10.2106/10473

Background/Objectives: Hematological toxicities (i.e., neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia), are common chemotherapy complications and may be exacerbated by renal or hepatic impairment due to altered drug exposure. This study assessed the association between renal and hepatic impairment and hematologic toxicities during chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study using the Utrecht Patient Oriented Database (UPOD) identified all chemotherapy administrations at the University Medical Centre Utrecht between 2011 and 2024. Regimens administered in ≥10 patients and ≥5 renally (GFR < 60 mL/min) or hepatically (bilirubin or AST > 1× ULN) impaired patients were included in descriptive analyses. Cox proportional hazards models estimated associations between organ impairment and grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities for regimens with ≥10 events per toxicity endpoint. Results: Overall, 4489 patients were included in renal analyses and 6218 in hepatic analyses, with smaller endpoint-specific subgroups for survival analyses. Renal impairment was associated with grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (HR: 1.43 [95% CI: 1.18–1.73]), thrombocytopenia (HR: 1.46 [95% CI: 1.15–1.86], and anemia (HR: 1.66 [1.27–2.16]). Hepatic impairment was similarly associated with neutropenia (HR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.11–1.40]), thrombocytopenia (HR: 1.33 [95% CI: 1.13–1.57]), and anemia (HR: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.34–1.95]). Cyclophosphamide (pro-drug) regimens showed higher toxicity risk in renally impaired patients and reduced risk in hepatically impaired patients. Etoposide, melphalan and methotrexate were associated with increased toxicity in hepatically impaired patients. Conclusions: Renal and hepatic impairment significantly increase chemotherapy-induced hematologic toxicity. Several high-risk chemotherapy regimens were identified; however, larger multi-center datasets are needed to refine dosing guidance based on renal and hepatic function.

Improving home haemodialysis: Stability evaluation of routine clinical chemistry analytes in blood samples of haemodialysis patients