IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/79chedp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is there too much laboratory testing?

Author

Listed:
  • Brenda Leese

Abstract

There is evidence that the numbers of diagnostic tests performed in hospital laboratories could be reduced without affecting outcomes to patients, and with significant concommitant reduction in costs. The concentration of testing in centralised laboratories located in larger hospitals, and the use of automated techniques, together with an increase in the types of tests available, have contributed to the large increase in test requests. This trend has been apparent for many years. There has been little, if any, control of test requests. Moreover, the patterns of requests for laboratory tests differ between physicians, which suggests that some tests are unnecessary. The methods which have been used to modify clinical behaviour fall into six categories: education, feedback, participation, peer review, financial incentives and administrative changes. It is concluded that no single method is effective and a combination of methods may be necessary depending on the situation. Whatever methods are adopted, they must be sustained for introducing test request reductions in hospitals. It is shown that increasing use of desk top analysers in general practice and hospital wards will only have a small impact on the numbers of tests requested. The NHS Review, which incorporates costing procedures for diagnostic tests, may cause a reduction in hospital test requests once their costs are known. Determining costs will itself be an expensive and time consuming process, but an inevitable product of information technology investments (e.g. The Resource Management Initiative).

Suggested Citation

  • Brenda Leese, 1991. "Is there too much laboratory testing?," Working Papers 079chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:79chedp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%2079.pdf
    File Function: First version, 1991
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brenda Leese & Mike Drummond & Roger Hawkes, 1994. "Medical technology in general practice in the UK: will fundholding make a difference?," Working Papers 122chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    diagnotic tests; screening;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chy:respap:79chedp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.