English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  In several settings, a shorter time to diagnosis has been shown to lead to improved clinical outcomes. The implementation of a rapid laboratory testing allows for a pre-visit testing in the outpatient clinic, meaning that test results are available during the first outpatient visit.    Objective  To determine whether the pre-visit laboratory testing leads to a shorter time to diagnosis in the general internal medicine outpatient clinic.    Design  An “on-off” trial, allocating subjects to one of two treatment arms in consecutive alternating blocks.    Participants  All new referrals to the internal medicine outpatient clinic of a university hospital were included, excluding second opinions. A total of 595 patients were eligible; one person declined to participate, leaving data from 594 patients for analysis.    Intervention  In the intervention group, patients had a standardized pre-visit laboratory testing before the first visit.    Main Measures  The primary outcome was the time to diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were the correctness of the preliminary diagnosis on the first day, health care utilization, and patient and physician satisfaction.    Key Results  There was no difference in time to diagnosis between the two groups (median 35 days vs 35 days; hazard ratio 1.03 [0.87–1.22];  p  = .71). The pre-visit testing group had higher proportions of both correct preliminary diagnoses on day 1 (24% vs 14%;  p  = .003) and diagnostic workups being completed on day 1 (10% vs 3%;  p  < .001). The intervention group had more laboratory tests done (50.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 39.0–69.0] vs 43.0 [IQR 31.0–68.5];  p  < .001). Otherwise, there were no differences between the groups.    Conclusions  Pre-visit testing did not lead to a shorter overall time to diagnosis. However, a greater proportion of patients had a correct diagnosis on the first day. Further studies should focus on customizing pre-visit laboratory panels, to improve their efficacy.    Trial Registration  NL5009    Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06453-2.

The Impact of a Standardized Pre-visit Laboratory Testing Panel in the Internal Medicine Outpatient Clinic: a Controlled “On-Off” Trial