This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Winkens, R. A.G. Articles by Knottnerus, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Winkens, R. A.G. Articles by Knottnerus, A. J. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Health Screening Laboratory Tests Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Routine Individual Feedback on Requests for Diagnostic Tests

An Economic Evaluation

André J.H.A. Ament, PhD

Peter Pop, MD, PhD

Peter H.A. Reniers

Richard P.T.M. Grol, PhD

André J. Knottnerus, MD, PhD

The authors assessed the economic consequences of routine individual feedback on test requests provided to 85 family physicians in a region with 187,000 inhabitants. In a retrospective study as part of a quasi-experiment, cost trends in a region where feedback was provided over a seven-year period were compared with cost trends elsewhere in The Netherlands without feedback. Data on variable costs were obtained for 400 individual tests that accounted for 90% of all requests. Differences in request trends thus were transformed to savings in costs of diagnostic testing, taking account of the extra costs of providing the feedback. Expenditures for diagnostic testing de clined after the start of the feedback, despite the costs of providing the feedback. The savings increased as the feedback continued. Compared with the trend elsewhere without feedback, over seven years a total net sum of 1.4 million U.S. dollars was saved. Routine individual feedback is therefore economically worthwhile. Key words: economic evaluation; feedback; diagnostic testing; quality assurance; cost contain ment. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:309-314)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 16, No. 4, 309-314 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Shahangian and S. R. Snyder Laboratory Medicine Quality Indicators: A Review of the Literature Am J Clin Pathol, March 1, 2009; 131(3): 418 - 431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Poley, K. I. Edelenbos, M. Mosseveld, M. A.M. van Wijk, D. H. de Bakker, J. van der Lei, and M. P.M.H. Rutten-van Molken Cost Consequences of Implementing an Electronic Decision Support System for Ordering Laboratory Tests in Primary Care: Evidence from a Controlled Prospective Study in The Netherlands Clin. Chem., February 1, 2007; 53(2): 213 - 219. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J L Severens Value for money of changing healthcare services? Economic evaluation of quality improvement Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2003; 12(5): 366 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Gopal Rao, M Crook, and M L Tillyer Pathology tests: is the time for demand management ripe at last? J. Clin. Pathol., April 1, 2003; 56(4): 243 - 248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Bindels, A. Hasman, J. W. J. van Wersch, P. Pop, and R. A. G. Winkens The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests Med Decis Making, January 1, 2003; 23(1): 31 - 37. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. M. Tierney Feedback of Performance and Diagnostic Testing: Lessons from Maastricht Med Decis Making, October 1, 1996; 16(4): 418 - 419. [PDF]