↓ Skip to main content

The incidence of un-indicated preoperative testing in a tertiary academic ambulatory center: a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The incidence of un-indicated preoperative testing in a tertiary academic ambulatory center: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13741-015-0023-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Onyi C. Onuoha, Michael B. Hatch, Todd A. Miano, Lee A. Fleisher

Abstract

Despite existing evidence and guidelines advocating for appropriate risk stratification, ambulatory surgery in low-risk patients continues to be accompanied by a battery of routine tests prior to surgery. Using a single-center retrospective cohort study, we aimed to quantify the incidence of un-indicated preoperative testing in an academic ambulatory center by utilizing recommendations by the recently developed American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) "Choosing Wisely" Top-5 list. We utilized data from the EPIC medical records of 3111 patients who had ambulatory surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania during a 6-month period. Data were abstracted from laboratory studies- complete blood count, electrolyte panel, coagulation studies, and cardiac studies-stress test, and echocardiogram obtained within 30 days prior to surgery. Preoperative tests obtained from each patient were categorized into "indicated" (ASA ≥ 3) and "un-indicated" (ASA 1 and 2) tests, and percentages were reported. During the study period, 52.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 37.6-66.4) of all patients had at least one un-indicated laboratory test performed preoperatively. Further analysis revealed variation in the incidence of preoperative ordering between tests; 73 % of all complete blood counts (CBCs), 70 % of all metabolic panels, and 49 % of all coagulation studies were considered un-indicated by "Top-5 List" criteria. Stated differently, of the patients included in the sample, 51 % of patients received an un-indicated CBC, 41 % an un-indicated metabolic panel, and 16 % un-indicated coagulation studies. Twelve percent of "any un-indicated preoperative test" were obtained from ASA 1 healthy patients. Of the 587 patients less than 36 years old, 331 (56 %) had at least one test that was deemed un-indicated. Forty-one patients had either an echocardiogram or stress test ordered and performed within 30 days of surgery. Of these, eight (19.5 %) studies were un-indicated as determined by chart review. The incidence of ordering "at least one un-indicated preoperative test" in low-risk patients undergoing low-risk surgery remains high even in academic tertiary institutions. In the emerging era of optimizing patient safety and financial accountability, further studies are needed to better understand the problem of overuse while identifying modifiable attitudes and institutional influences on perioperative practices among all stakeholders involved. Such information would drive the development of feasible interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 16 32%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#12,625,249
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#100
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,929
of 390,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.