Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T11:06:40.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Allowing Clinical Discretion in Ordering Biochemical Tests: Evaluation by Complementar Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ken Buckingham ,
Ian Russell ,
Iain Ross ,
Patrick Gibson  and
Neil Paterson
Ken Buckingham
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Ian Russell
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Iain Ross
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Patrick Gibson
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Neil Paterson
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe the effects on costs, working patterns, and clinical behavior of installing a DAX “discretionary” biochemistry analyzer. Use of the new analyzer encouraged doctors to be more specific in requesting biochemical tests, which substantially reduced the number of tests requested and slightly reduced overall costs. Doctors preferred being able to order tests in this more specific way.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , Fall 1994 , pp. 695 - 700
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Fleming, P. R., & Zilva, J. F.Work-loads in chemical pathology: Too many tests? Health Trends, 1981, 13, 46–49.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Griner, P. F., & Glazer, R. J.Mis-use of laboratory test and diagnostic procedures. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 307, 1336–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Young, D. W.Cost and clinical decisions. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 1983, 17, 86–87.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Young, D. W.Improving laboratory usage: A review. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 1988, 64, 283–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed