↓ Skip to main content

Impact of add-on laboratory testing at an academic medical center: a five year retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Clinical Pathology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Impact of add-on laboratory testing at an academic medical center: a five year retrospective study
Published in
BMC Clinical Pathology, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12907-015-0011-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louis S. Nelson, Scott R. Davis, Robert M. Humble, Jeff Kulhavy, Dean R. Aman, Matthew D. Krasowski

Abstract

Clinical laboratories frequently receive orders to perform additional tests on existing specimens ('add-ons'). Previous studies have examined add-on ordering patterns over short periods of time. The objective of this study was to analyze add-on ordering patterns over an extended time period. We also analyzed the impact of a robotic specimen archival/retrieval system on add-on testing procedure and manual effort. In this retrospective study at an academic medical center, electronic health records from were searched to obtain all add-on orders that were placed in the time period of May 2, 2009 to December 31, 2014. During the time period of retrospective study, 880,359 add-on tests were ordered on 96,244 different patients. Add-on testing comprised 3.3 % of total test volumes. There were 443,411 unique ordering instances, leading to an average of 1.99 add-on tests per instance. Some patients had multiple episodes of add-on test orders at different points in time, leading to an average of 9.15 add-on tests per patient. The majority of add-on orders were for chemistry tests (78.8 % of total add-ons) with the next most frequent being hematology and coagulation tests (11.2 % of total add-ons). Inpatient orders accounted for 66.8 % of total add-on orders, while the emergency department and outpatient clinics had 14.8 % and 18.4 % of total add-on orders, respectively. The majority of add-ons were placed within 8 hours (87.3 %) and nearly all by 24 hours (96.8 %). Nearly 100 % of add-on orders within the emergency department were placed within 8 hours. The introduction of a robotic specimen archival/retrieval unit saved an average of 2.75 minutes of laboratory staff manual time per unique add-on order. This translates to 24.1 hours/day less manual effort in dealing with add-on orders. Our study reflects the previous literature in showing that add-on orders significantly impact the workload of the clinical laboratory. The majority of add-on orders are clinical chemistry tests, and most add-on orders occur within 24 hours of original specimen collection. Robotic specimen archival/retrieval units can reduce manual effort in the clinical laboratory associated with add-on orders.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 33%
Student > Master 3 25%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 17%
Computer Science 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#751,302
of 7,406,294 outputs
Outputs from BMC Clinical Pathology
#4
of 92 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,625
of 217,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Clinical Pathology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,406,294 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 217,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them