Cardiology

May 2014

Clinical

We live in testing times

Teaching rational test ordering in general practice

Volume 43, No.5, May 2014 Pages 273-276

Simon Morgan

Justin Coleman

Background

Pathology, imaging and other tests have an essential role in the diagnosis and screening for disease in medical practice. However, over-testing has recently emerged as a significant issue and has implications for the patient, doctor and health system. Vocational training is arguably the most critical period in the development of future patterns of clinical practice for the GP. This includes the development of test ordering behaviour. The general practitioner (GP) supervisor, therefore, has a key role to play in educating registrars to avoid over-testing.

Objective/s

In this article, we discuss general approaches and practical strategies for GP supervisors to teach their registrars rational test ordering.

Discussion

Teaching should take a patient-centred focus and an emphasis on fostering a greater tolerance of uncertainty. Role modelling and demonstrated use of relevant clinical guidelines is a strong influence on registrar behaviour. Specific strategies for teaching rational test ordering include random case analysis, investigation audit, topic tutorials and use of targeted resources.

If you’re facing a screening test for breast or prostate cancer, high cholesterol, or low testosterone, someone is about to turn you into a patient. You need to ask yourself one simple question: Am I ready for all the things that could go wrong? (Alan Cassels)1

Les gens bien portants sont des malades qui s’ignorent [well people are sick people who simply don’t know it—yet] (Jules Romaines).2

Pathology, imaging and other investigations have a critical role in the diagnosis, monitoring and screening for disease in medical practice. Reference books of medical tests are at least as old as the Hippocratic Corpus. The number of available tests has risen rapidly in recent decades and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia manual now lists over 750 individual tests.3 The use of laboratory and imaging tests is increasing in many countries.4 In Australia, the number of Medicare-funded pathology tests increased by 54% from 2000–2001 to 2007–2008, a volume increase from 62.1 million to 95.7 million tests.5 Over this period, pathology costs increased from $1.2 billion to almost $1.9 billion. General practitioners (GPs) are responsible for initiating 70% of Medicare-funded pathology tests.5

While much of this increase is appropriate, a growing body of evidence suggests that over-testing is a significant problem.6,7 Australian data suggest that pathology testing does not always align well with recommended guidelines and 25–75% of tests are not supported by evidence or expert opinion.5 Concerns have been raised about the inappropriate use of many common tests, including full blood count (FBC),8 liver function tests (LFTs),9 B12/folate,10 thyroid function tests (TFTs),11 vitamin D,12 prostate-specific antigen (PSA),13 screening mammography,14 lumbar spine X-rays15 and shoulder imaging.16

Inappropriate test ordering substantially increases healthcare expenditure, including the opportunity costs of wasted resources. In addition, unexpected abnormal results can be problematic for the GP to interpret and manage. This includes the assessment of increasing numbers of ‘incidentalomas’ (tumours unexpectedly identified during medical imaging), for example, in the kidney17 and thyroid.18

Most importantly, over-testing can lead to patient harm. The pre-test probability of disease in general practice is relatively low, meaning false positive tests are common, even in tests with reasonable specificity. For example, if a healthy person is subjected to 10 unnecessary tests, there is a 40% chance of at least one false-positive result.19 False-positive results and incidental findings can lead to a cascade of further tests,20 so-called ‘investigation momentum’21 (see Case study). This, in turn, leads to a greater risk of complications and patient harm, as well as the potential for significant patient anxiety. Investigations can also cause harm directly: for example, radiation from computed tomography (CT) scanning in children aged <15 years in one year in the USA has been estimated to produce nearly 5000 future cancers.22 Lastly, over-testing may lead to overdiagnosis, the circumstance where people without symptoms are diagnosed with a disease that ultimately will not cause them to experience symptoms or early death.23 This can lead to unnecessary treatment, adding to the risk of patient harm.

A number of influences have been described on the test ordering behaviour of doctors.4,24–26 These comprise doctor factors (eg. demographics, knowledge, prior experience, personality, fear of litigation), patient factors (trust, anxiety), practice factors (billing practices) and systems factors (development of new tests).

Over-testing and its counterparts, over-diagnosis and over-treatment, are now the subject of dedicated medical journal series such as Less is More27 and Too Much Medicine,28 and campaigns such as Choosing Wisely.29 In Australia, NPS MedicineWise has recently expanded its role into the appropriate use of tests.30

General practice training

Vocational training is arguably the most critical period in the development of future patterns of clinical practice for the GP. This includes the development of test ordering behaviour. Critical use of investigations is one of the core skills of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) Common Training Outcomes.31 However, there is some evidence for lack of training for Australian GP registrars in quality use of pathology.32,33

GP registrars in Australia learn by the apprenticeship model, seeing patients under the supervision of accredited GP supervisors. Supervisors have a core role in assessing learning needs, facilitating learning and providing feedback to registrars.34 Targeted education and feedback around test ordering has been shown to lead to changes in the behaviour of primary care practitioners.35,36 The GP supervisor has been identified as having a key role in the teaching of rational pathology ordering.8 This includes the potential to teach registrars when and how not to order investigations.

Table 1. Teaching rational test ordering in the practice setting
General approach
Patient-centred approach
Fostering tolerance of uncertainty
Role modelling
Focusing on importance of clinical assessment
Specific strategies
Consultation observation
Problem case discussion
Random case analysis
Pathology/radiology inbox review
Topic tutorials
Use of clinical guidelines
Specific resources
iNvestigate. Available at investigate.med.unsw.edu.au/home.jsf
Common sense pathology. Available at www.rcpa.edu.au/ Publications/CommonSensePathology.htm

General approaches to teaching rational test ordering

A number of general supervision approaches help facilitate the teaching of rational test ordering (Table 1). Patient-centred communication has been shown to enhance patient satisfaction and lead to better health outcomes,37 and has also been associated with ordering fewer diagnostic tests.38 Patients expect that their GP will explain the reason for diagnostic tests.39 Supervisors should therefore frame practice-based teaching through a patient-centred approach,40 including the need for registrars to identify patients’ concerns and expectations, and provide adequate explanations on the rationale for individual test ordering.

Undifferentiated presentations are common in general practice, and frequently patients will not have a firm diagnosis at the end of a consultation.41 A low tolerance to uncertainty has been described as a causative factor in over-testing.42 This can be exacerbated by a fear of litigation, resulting in the practice of defensive medicine.43 GP registrars, with their relative inexperience and unfamiliarity with managing undifferentiated illness, may be less tolerant of uncertainty. This may be further compounded by other known factors in driving overtesting: the ‘need to reassure the patient’ and patient pressure to order tests.44,45 The GP supervisor, therefore, has a key role in fostering acceptance of uncertainty in their trainees. This includes supporting diagnostic strategies other than test ordering, such as watchful waiting and using ‘gut feelings’.46,47 As the pre-test probability of underlying somatic disease is low in patients with unexplained complaints (eg. fatigue), immediate test ordering is often superfluous.44 Furthermore, registrars can be advised that requesting diagnostic tests for patients with a low risk of serious illness generally does little to reassure patients or reduce anxiety.48

Role modelling has a strong influence on trainee behaviour and indeed has been described as ‘the primary teaching strategy of clinical education’.49 Supervisors should therefore model best practice in test ordering for screening and diagnosis, and use appropriate guidelines and evidence sources (eg. the RACGP Red Book50).

Lastly, as a general approach, supervisors should focus on the primacy of a thorough history and physical examination in the assessment of patient.51 It has been described that an ‘excessive reliance on the results of empirical tests’ has replaced clinical acumen.19 In recent years, the physical examination skills of doctors have declined internationally.52 Core clinical skills should be taught and reinforced, and investigations framed as an adjunct to a comprehensive clinical assessment.

Specific teaching and learning strategies

Rational test ordering can be assessed and taught using a range of traditional methods, including consultation observation and problem case discussion. However, a number of strategies are ideally suited to teaching the effective and appropriate use of laboratory testing in the practice setting (Table 1).

Random case analysis (RCA) is a powerful tool for clinical supervision, assessment and teaching.53 In RCA, the registrar’s clinical notes are randomly selected and the case analysed in detail. Its particular strength is in identifying unconscious incompetence, or the ‘unknown unknowns’, of the learner. Test ordering can be reviewed in the context of the actual clinical case, but hypothetical scenarios can also be posed to further challenge the registrar.

A more specific teaching method is regular auditing of test results.54 This can be readily performed by reviewing the inbox of incoming test results in the computerised medical record. This inbox review is an efficient and straightforward method of appraising a registrar’s overall test ordering behaviour. It provides an opportunity for focused teaching on specific tests and a means of evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching. Table 2 outlines a suggested framework for analysis.

RCA and inbox review may help identify commonly identified causes of overtesting in the registrar. These include (potentially unknown) clinical knowledge gaps, the desire to be complete, and indiscriminate use of disease-specific test panels (eg. diabetes check) in the computer software.55

Some evidence shows that test ordering is reduced when providers are made aware of the cost of the test.56 Such information can form part of a dedicated topic tutorial on rational test ordering, which may also include important concepts such as sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of tests; pre-test probability of disease; principles of screening; common drivers to over-testing; and the potential for harm as a result of over-testing. Supervisors can target their teaching on clinical scenarios where evidence-based clinical guidelines exist for testing (eg. investigation of acute musculoskeletal pain,57 fatigue 58 and screening50). A number of specific resources have been developed on rational test ordering (Table 1), useful in both practice-based teaching or as a self-directed learning resource.

Table 2. Framework for analysis of test ordering
Why did you order this test?
How will the result alter your management?
What are the risks of ordering/not ordering this test?
Is there a risk of overdiagnosis?
What is the likelihood of a positive result?
What is the prevalence of the provisional diagnosis?
Did any other factors influence your decision to order the test?
Does this presentation have any guidelines for testing?

Conclusion

Over-testing is a significant issue and has implications for the patient, doctor and healthcare system. The GP supervisor has a key role in educating registrars on rational test ordering. A number of general approaches and specific teaching strategies are ideally suited to teaching this topic in the general practice setting. Future research should focus on teaching of rational test ordering by GP supervisors in the practice setting, including evaluating effectiveness.

Case study. Illustration of investigation momentum

Michael Hildred, aged 51 years, presented to his GP (a term 1 registrar) for a ‘50,000 km service’. He was well, with no significant past medical history or family history, but felt he should have a health check. The registrar examined him and requested ‘routine screening bloods’ from the computer software program: FBC, electrolytes urea creatinine (EUC), LFT, blood glucose levels (BGL), lipids, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), iron studies, PSA, B12, folate and vitamin D**. The results were all normal apart from mildly elevated transaminases on the LFTs. The registrar recalled Michael and suggested repeating the LFTs in one month. The repeat tests remained abnormal and Michael was referred for hepatitis serology and autoantibodies (normal) and an upper abdominal ultrasound. The ultrasound was normal apart from an incidental 2.5 cm lesion ‘suggestive of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH)’, with a recommendation for further investigation. The registrar recalled Michael again, causing great anxiety about a possible malignant cause. Michael was referred for a CT scan, which confirmed FNH, but with a recommendation for follow up in 12 months ‘to monitor size’. Repeat LFT returned to normal.

**For routine screening of a man aged 51 years, the only tests recommended by the RACGP ‘Red Book’50 are lipids, urinalysis, faecal occult blood test (FOBT) and, if high risk, BGL.

Competing interests: None.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References

  1. Cassels A, Seeking Sickness: Medical screening and the misguided hunt for disease, Greystone Books, 2012
  2. Romains J. Knock ou le triomphe de la médecine. Paris: Gallimard, 1924.
  3. The Royal College of Pathologists Australasia manual. Available at www.rcpamanual.edu.au/ [Accessed 7 September 2013].
  4. Verstappen WHJM, ter Riet G, Dubois WI, Winkens R, Grol RPTM, van der Weijden. Variation in test ordering behaviour of GPs: professional or context-related factors? Fam Pract 2004;21(4):387–95.
  5. Bayram C, Britt H, Miller G, Valenti L 2009. Evidence-practice gap in GP pathology test ordering: a comparison of BEACH pathology data and recommended testing. Available at www.health.gov.au/ internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ 9C300FE48F876E95CA257BF0001ACE0E/$File/ Evidence-practice%20gap%20in%20GP%20 pathology%20test%20ordering.pdf [Accessed 7 March 2014].
  6. McGregor M, Martin D. Testing 1,2,3. Is overtesting undermining patient and system health? Can Fam Physician 2012;58(11):1191–93.
  7. Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy BMJ 2012; 344:e3502 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3502
  8. Australian Government Department of Health and aging 2008. Quality Use of Pathology Program. Enhancing the quality use of pathology for GP Registrars and International Medical Graduates – assessing the need. Final report. Available at www.health.gov.au/internet/ main/publishing.nsf/Content/9C300FE48F876E95CA257 BF0001ACE0E/$File/Enhancing%20the%20quality%20use%20of%20pathology%20for%20G P%20registrars%20and%20international%20medical%20graduates.pdf [Accessed 26 February 2014].
  9. Lilford RJ, Bentham LM, Armstrong MA. What is the best strategy for investigating abnormal liver function tests in primary care? Implications from a prospective study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003099. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003099.
  10. Willis CD, Metz MP, Hiller JE, Elshaug AG. Vitamin B12 and folate tests: the ongoing need to determine appropriate use and public funding. Med J Aust 2013;198 (11):2013–16.
  11. Roti E, Gardini E, Magotti MG, et al. Are thyroid function tests too frequently and inappropriately requested? J Endocrinol Invest 1999;22(3):184–90.
  12. Bilinski KL, Boyages SC. The rising cost of vitamin D testing in Australia: time to establish guidelines for testing. Med J Aust 2012;197 (2):90.
  13. Del Mar CB, Glasziou PP, Hirst GH, Wright RG, Hoffmann TC. Should we screen for prostate cancer? A re-examination of the evidence. Med J Aust 2013;198(10):525–27
  14. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD001877. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5
  15. Srinivas S, Deyo RA, Berger ZD. Application of “Less Is More” to Low Back Pain. Arch Intern Med 2012;172(13):1016–20.
  16. Buchbinder R, Staples MP, Shanahan EM, Roos JF. General practitioner management of shoulder pain in comparison with rheumatologist expectation of care and best evidence: an Australian national survey. PLoS One 2013;8(4):e61243.
  17. Rao K, Royce PL. Incidentally detected small renal masses. Investigation and management. Aust Fam Physician 2011;40(10):776–82.
  18. Brito JP, Morris JC, Montori VM. Thyroid cancer: zealous imaging has increased detection and treatment of low risk tumours. BMJ 2013;347:f4706.
  19. Hammett RJH, Harris RD. Halting the growth in diagnostic testing. Med J Aust 2002;177:124–25.
  20. Deyo RA. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annual Rev Public Health 2002; 23:23–44.
  21. Sah S, Elias P, Ariely D. Investigation Momentum: the relentless pursuit to resolve uncertainty JAMA Intern Med 2013;173(10):932–33.
  22. Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, et al. The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatrics 2013;167(8):700–07.
  23. Welch G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Overdiagnosed: making people sick in the pursuit of health. Beacon Press, 2011.
  24. Sood R, Sood A, Ghosh AK. Non-evidence-based variables affecting physicians’ test-ordering tendencies: a systematic review. Neth J Med 2007;65(5):167–77
  25. Van Bokhoven MA, Pleunis-van Empel MC, Koch H, Grol RP, Dinant GJ, van der Weijden T. Why do patients want to have their blood tested? A qualitative study of patient expectations in general practice. BMC Fam Pract 2006;7:75.
  26. Axt-Adam P, van der Wouden J, van der Does E. Influencing behaviour of physicians ordering laboratory test: a literature study. Med Care 1993;31:784–94
  27. Journal of the American Medical Association Less is More series. Available at jamanetwork.com/collection.aspx?categoryid=6017 [Accessed 7 September 2013].
  28. British Medical Journal Too Much Medicine series. Available at www.bmj.com/too-much-medicine [Accessed 7 September 2013].
  29. American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely. Available at www.choosingwisely.org/ [Accessed 7 September 2013].
  30. NPS MedicineWise. NPS medical tests initiative. Available at www.nps.org.au/ about-us/what-we-do/nps-medical-tests-initiative [Accessed 7 September 2013].
  31. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Common Training Outcomes. Available at curriculum.racgp.org.au/statements/common-training-outcomes/ [Accessed 7 September 2013.
  32. Bubner T, Laurence C, Tirimacco R. Assessing pathology training needs; results from a survey of general practice registrars. Aust Fam Physician 2012;41(9):721–24.
  33. Healthcare Management Advisors. Analysis of current laboratory medicine (pathology) teaching practice in prevocational and general practitioner vocational training. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2003.
  34. Wearne S, Dornan T, Teunissen, Skinner T. General practitioners as supervisors in postgraduate clinical education: an integrative review. Medical Education 2012; 46:1161–73.
  35. Mindemark M, Larsson A. Long-term effects of an education programme on the optimal use of clinical chemistry testing in primary health care. Scand Journ Clin Lab Invest 2009;69 (4):481–86.
  36. Verstappen WHJM, van der Weijden T, Sijbrandij J, et al. Effect of a practice-based strategy on test ordering performance of primary care physicians: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003;289(18):2407–12.
  37. Stewart M. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J 1995;152:1423–33.
  38. Epstein RM, Franks P, Shields GC et al. Patient-centered communication and diagnostic testing. Ann Fam Med 2005; 20:415–21
  39. Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ. Patients’ perceptions of omitted examinations and tests: a qualitative analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15:38–45
  40. Stewart M, Brown J, Weston W, et al. Patient-Centred Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method. 2nd edn Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2003.
  41. McWhinney IR A textbook of family Medicine 2nd edition London: Oxford University Press, 1997
  42. van der Weijden T, van Bokhoven M, Dinant G, van Hasselt C, Grol R. Understanding laboratory testing in diagnostic uncertainty: a qualitative study in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2002;52:974–80.
  43. Winkens R, Dinant G-J. Evidence base of diagnostic research: rational, cost effective use of investigations in clinical practice. BMJ 2002;324:783–85.
  44. Van der Weijden T, van Velson  M, Dinant GJ, van Hasselt CM, Grol R. Unexplained complaints in general practice: prevalence, patients expectations and professionals test ordering behaviour. Med Decis Making 2003;23:226–31.
  45. Ring A, Dowrick C, Humphris G, Salmon P. Do patients with unexplained physical symptoms pressurise general practitioners for somatic treatment? A qualitative study BMJ 2004;328(7447):1057.
  46. O’Riordan M et al. Dealing with uncertainty in general practice: an essential skill for the general practitioner. Qual Prim Care 2011; 19:175–81.
  47. Stolper E, van Bokhoven M, Houben P et al. The diagnostic role of gut feelings in general practice. A focus group of the concept and its determinants. gut feelings in general practice BMC Fam Pract 2009;10:17.
  48. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance After Diagnostic Testing With a Low Pretest Probability of Serious Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(6):407–16.
  49. Irby DM. Clinical Teaching and the Clinical Teacher. J Med Educ 1986;61:35-45.
  50. Guidelines for preventive activities in general practice (the red book) 8th edition. East Melbourne: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, 2012.
  51. Palfrey S. Daring to practice low cost medicine in a high tech era NEJM 2011;364(11):e21
  52. Oliver CM, Hunter SA, Ikeda T, Galetly DC. Junior doctor skill in the art of physical examination: a retrospective study of the medical admission note over four decades. BMJ Open2013;3:e002257 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002257
  53. Morgan S, Ingham G. Random case analysis. A new framework for Australian general practice training. Aust Fam Physician 2013;42(1-2):69–73.
  54. Kilminster S, Cottrell D, Grant J, Jolly B. AMEE Guide No. 27: Effective educational and clinical supervision 2007;29(1):2–19.
  55. Hindmarsh JT, Lyon AW. Strategies to promote rational clinical chemistry test utilization Clin Biochem 1996;29(8):291–99
  56. Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering - a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013:1–6. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.232.
  57. National Health and Medical Research Council. Evidence-based management of acute musculoskeletal pain. 2003. ISBN 1 875378 49 9. Available at www.nhmrc.gov.au/ _files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/ cp94.pdf. [Accessed 7 September 2013].
  58. Moulds REB, van Driel M, Greenberg P, et al. Fatigue: diagnostic approach in primary care. In: eTG complete [Internet] [Internet]. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, 2011. 

Correspondence afp@racgp.org.au

Yes     No

Declaration of competing interests *

Yes No

Additional Author (remove)

Yes No

    

 

 

 

 

Competing Interests: 

Your comment is being submitted, please wait

 

Download citation in RIS format (EndNote, Zotero, RefMan, RefWorks)

Download citation in BIBTEX format (RefMan)

Download citation in REFER format (EndNote, Zotero, RefMan, RefWorks)

For more information see Wikipedia: Comparison of reference management software
Advertisement loading...

Advertisement

Type

Clinical

2014