Search

Reducing unnecessary tests that do not enhance quality can promote health-care value. Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) is often ordered at a frequency exceeding the recommendation of once every 3 months. We conducted a quality improvement (QI) initiative aimed to reduce unnecessary repeat testing by 75% at a tertiary care academic hospital.A retrospective baseline analysis was conducted on laboratory data from 2019 that enumerated unnecessary A1C tests, defined as repeat tests ordered within 60 days. A multifaceted change intervention with iterative plan-do-study-act cycles was introduced in March 2019 to educate providers and to automatically cancel A1C tests requested within 60 days. Monthly totals of A1C testing processed were plotted on statistical process control charts.In 2019, 11% of all A1C tests ordered were unnecessary. Between March 2020 and January 2021, 11% of the tests (N=14,247 tests) were unnecessary, of which 84% were cancelled with our intervention. Providers in cardiology and nephrology accounted for over half (55%) of the unnecessary tests ordered.A 2-pronged approach informed by root-cause analysis, and comprised of gatekeeping and provider education, can effectively promote resource stewardship for reducing unnecessary A1C testing.

Background Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a surrogate marker of glycemia over the preceding three months, where the last 30 days contributes to 50% of the value (1). Therefore guidelines often recommend repeating HbA1c only after 3 months in most situations (2), but repeat testing of HbA1c is often conducted earlier when not warranted (3). We aimed to conduct a Quality Improvement (QI) initiative to reduce unnecessary repeat testing of HbA1c at a large tertiary care academic hospital in Toronto, Ontario by 50% by May 2020. Methods: The Model for Improvement Quality Improvement (QI) framework was used in the design of the QI project to reduce repeat HbA1c. Problem characterization was conducted to understand root causes and iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were used to develop a change intervention. Unnecessary HbA1c tests were the primary outcome and defined as repeat HbA1c testing within 60 days; the top three specialities that ordered unnecessary HbA1c tests were targeted for education prior to implementation of the change intervention. Results: Baseline data on all HbA1c tests in 2018 revealed repeat testing in approximately 10% of 15,290 HbA1c tests, with estimated potential savings of more than $11,000 based on the provincial reimbursement rate. The top 3 ordering specialities targeted for education included Nephrology (n=410 repeat HbA1c tests), Cardiology (n=246 repeat HbA1c tests), and Endocrinology (n=136 repeat HbA1C tests). Root cause analysis revealed that providers often ordered repeat HbA1c tests due to being unaware of prior results and a knowledge gap of testing recommendations. A laboratory forced function will be implemented on December 1, 2019 to cancel any repeat HbA1c tests within 60 days and calls to the lab to add HbA1c testing will be tracked. Conclusions: Repeat HbA1c testing is frequent in hospital settings and can be an important target for QI efforts. A forced function to cancel processing of repeat HbA1c may be an appropriate QI intervention to reduce repeat testing to promote high-value care. Ongoing data analysis will be conducted to assess the impact of this intervention. References (1) Goldstein DE, Little RR, Lorenz RA, Malone JI, Nathan D, Peterson CM, Sacks DB. Tests of Glycemia in Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27(7): 1761-1773. (2) Berard LD, Siemens R, Woo V. Diabetes Canada 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Diabetes in Canada: Monitoring Glycemic Control. Can J Diabetes 2018;42(Suppl 1):S47-S53. (3) Chami N, Simons JE, Sweetman A, Don-Wauchope AC. Rates of inappropriate laboratory test utilization in Ontario. Clinical Biochemistry 2017;50: 822-827.

Background A preponderance of male fetuses in pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia was described over 40 years ago. Since then, however, there has been conflicting evidence in the literature, with some studies supporting a male preponderance, some demonstrating no relationship with fetal sex, and others reporting increased risk in pregnancies bearing females. Objectives In this context, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to objectively evaluate the relationship between fetal sex and maternal risk of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. Search strategy Studies from January 1950 to April 2015 were identified from PUBMED and EMBASE. Selection criteria This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 22 articles reporting data on fetal sex and prevalence of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. Data collection and analysis Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Pooled estimates of the relative risk (RR) were calculated by random-effects model. Main results Male fetus was considered the exposure and prevalence of maternal pre-eclampsia/eclampsia was the outcome of interest. We identified 534 studies through electronic searches and three studies through manual searches. Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, yielding data on 3 163 735 women. Pooled analyses of these studies showed no association between male fetal sex and maternal risk of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia (RR 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.97–1.05); however, a subgroup analysis including only studies that evaluated the non-Asian population (n = 2 931 771 women) demonstrated that male fetal sex was associated with increased maternal risk of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03–1.06; I2 = 10%; P = 0.33). Conclusion Male fetal sex is associated with maternal risk of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia in the non-Asian population. Tweetable abstract Fetal sex is associated with maternal risk of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia in the non-Asian population.

It has recently emerged that carrying a male fetus may be associated with poorer maternal beta cell function and an increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Recognising that the overall impact of fetal sex on maternal glucose metabolism is likely to be subtle, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to obtain a robust estimate of the incremental maternal risk of GDM associated with the sex of the baby.We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify observational studies published between 1 January 1950 and 4 April 2015 that reported data on fetal sex and the prevalence of GDM. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and pooled estimates of the RR were calculated by a random-effects model. We considered male fetus as the exposure and prevalence of GDM as the outcome of interest.We identified 320 studies through electronic searches and nine studies through manual searches. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding data on 2,402,643 women. Pooled analysis of these studies demonstrated an increased risk of GDM in women carrying a male fetus compared with women carrying a female fetus (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02, 1.06). This result was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis including only studies that applied a stringent definition of GDM (RR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01, 1.06) (I(2) = 0%, p = 0.66).Pregnant women carrying a boy have a 4% higher relative risk of GDM than those carrying a girl. The fetus thus may have previously unsuspected effects on maternal glucose metabolism in pregnancy.