Loading…

A Generalizable Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Onsite versus Send-out Clinical Laboratory Testing

Background Laboratory networks provide services through onsite testing or through specimen transport to higher-tier laboratories. This decision is based on the interplay of testing characteristics, treatment characteristics, and epidemiological characteristics. Objectives Our objective was to develo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medical decision making 2024-04, Vol.44 (3), p.307-319
Main Authors: Schroeder, Lee F., Rebman, Paul, Kasaie, Parastu, Kenu, Ernest, Zelner, Jon, Dowdy, David W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-eb2c0d87b291de2991ef3fc87c7605aaaefe7d80db82b2efd5fb5f7f8d6297343
container_end_page 319
container_issue 3
container_start_page 307
container_title Medical decision making
container_volume 44
creator Schroeder, Lee F.
Rebman, Paul
Kasaie, Parastu
Kenu, Ernest
Zelner, Jon
Dowdy, David W.
description Background Laboratory networks provide services through onsite testing or through specimen transport to higher-tier laboratories. This decision is based on the interplay of testing characteristics, treatment characteristics, and epidemiological characteristics. Objectives Our objective was to develop a generalizable model using the threshold approach to medical decision making to inform test placement decisions. Methods We developed a decision model to compare the incremental utility of onsite versus send-out testing for clinical purposes. We then performed Monte Carlo simulations to identify the settings under which each strategy would be preferred. Tuberculosis was modeled as an exemplar. Results The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. When the sensitivity decrements of onsite testing were minimal, onsite testing tended to be preferred when send-out delays reduced clinical utility by >20%. By contrast, when onsite testing incurred large reductions in sensitivity, onsite testing tended to be preferred when utility lost due to delays was >50%. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were >10% of treatment costs. Conclusions Decision makers can select onsite versus send-out testing in an evidence-based fashion using estimates of the percentage of clinical utility lost due to send-out delays and the relative accuracy of onsite versus send-out testing. This model is designed to be generalizable to a wide variety of use cases. Highlights The design of laboratory networks, including the decision to place diagnostic instruments at the point-of-care or at higher tiers as accessed through specimen transport, can be informed using the threshold approach to medical decision making. The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. The threshold approach to medical decision making can be used to compare point-of-care testing accuracy decrements with the lost utility of treatment due to send-out testing delays. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were >10% of treatment costs.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0272989X241232666
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10987262</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0272989X241232666</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2942190373</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-eb2c0d87b291de2991ef3fc87c7605aaaefe7d80db82b2efd5fb5f7f8d6297343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9P3DAQxa0KVLbAB-CCfOQS6j9JbJ8QWrq00lYcWCRuluOMFy9Zm9oJFf30TbQUtarEaaSZ33sz9kPohJJzSoX4TJhgSqp7VlLGWV3XH9CMVhUraknv99BsmhcTcIA-5bwhhJZKlh_RAZdlqbisZmhzia8hQDKd_2WaDvAVWJ99DMV38-jDGi-S2cLPmB6xiwnfQge2n_o3Ifse8DOkPOSxH9oiDj2edz54azq8NE1Mpo_pBa8gT5IjtO9Ml-H4tR6iu8WX1fxrsby5_ja_XBaWl7IvoGGWtFI0TNEWmFIUHHdWCitqUhljwIFoJWkbyRoGrq1cUznhZFszJXjJD9HFzvdpaLbQWgj9-Dz9lPzWpBcdjdf_ToJ_0Ov4rClRUrCajQ5nrw4p_hjG6_XWZwtdZwLEIWumSkYV4YKPKN2hNsWcE7i3PZToKST9X0ij5vTvA98Uf1IZgfMdkM0a9CYOKYwf9o7jbyeIncI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2942190373</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Generalizable Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Onsite versus Send-out Clinical Laboratory Testing</title><source>Sage Journals Online</source><creator>Schroeder, Lee F. ; Rebman, Paul ; Kasaie, Parastu ; Kenu, Ernest ; Zelner, Jon ; Dowdy, David W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schroeder, Lee F. ; Rebman, Paul ; Kasaie, Parastu ; Kenu, Ernest ; Zelner, Jon ; Dowdy, David W.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Laboratory networks provide services through onsite testing or through specimen transport to higher-tier laboratories. This decision is based on the interplay of testing characteristics, treatment characteristics, and epidemiological characteristics. Objectives Our objective was to develop a generalizable model using the threshold approach to medical decision making to inform test placement decisions. Methods We developed a decision model to compare the incremental utility of onsite versus send-out testing for clinical purposes. We then performed Monte Carlo simulations to identify the settings under which each strategy would be preferred. Tuberculosis was modeled as an exemplar. Results The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. When the sensitivity decrements of onsite testing were minimal, onsite testing tended to be preferred when send-out delays reduced clinical utility by &gt;20%. By contrast, when onsite testing incurred large reductions in sensitivity, onsite testing tended to be preferred when utility lost due to delays was &gt;50%. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were &gt;10% of treatment costs. Conclusions Decision makers can select onsite versus send-out testing in an evidence-based fashion using estimates of the percentage of clinical utility lost due to send-out delays and the relative accuracy of onsite versus send-out testing. This model is designed to be generalizable to a wide variety of use cases. Highlights The design of laboratory networks, including the decision to place diagnostic instruments at the point-of-care or at higher tiers as accessed through specimen transport, can be informed using the threshold approach to medical decision making. The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. The threshold approach to medical decision making can be used to compare point-of-care testing accuracy decrements with the lost utility of treatment due to send-out testing delays. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were &gt;10% of treatment costs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-989X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1552-681X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-681X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241232666</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38449385</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Medical decision making, 2024-04, Vol.44 (3), p.307-319</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-eb2c0d87b291de2991ef3fc87c7605aaaefe7d80db82b2efd5fb5f7f8d6297343</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2787-3608 ; 0000-0002-3744-9501</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,79364</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38449385$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schroeder, Lee F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebman, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasaie, Parastu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenu, Ernest</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelner, Jon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dowdy, David W.</creatorcontrib><title>A Generalizable Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Onsite versus Send-out Clinical Laboratory Testing</title><title>Medical decision making</title><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><description>Background Laboratory networks provide services through onsite testing or through specimen transport to higher-tier laboratories. This decision is based on the interplay of testing characteristics, treatment characteristics, and epidemiological characteristics. Objectives Our objective was to develop a generalizable model using the threshold approach to medical decision making to inform test placement decisions. Methods We developed a decision model to compare the incremental utility of onsite versus send-out testing for clinical purposes. We then performed Monte Carlo simulations to identify the settings under which each strategy would be preferred. Tuberculosis was modeled as an exemplar. Results The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. When the sensitivity decrements of onsite testing were minimal, onsite testing tended to be preferred when send-out delays reduced clinical utility by &gt;20%. By contrast, when onsite testing incurred large reductions in sensitivity, onsite testing tended to be preferred when utility lost due to delays was &gt;50%. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were &gt;10% of treatment costs. Conclusions Decision makers can select onsite versus send-out testing in an evidence-based fashion using estimates of the percentage of clinical utility lost due to send-out delays and the relative accuracy of onsite versus send-out testing. This model is designed to be generalizable to a wide variety of use cases. Highlights The design of laboratory networks, including the decision to place diagnostic instruments at the point-of-care or at higher tiers as accessed through specimen transport, can be informed using the threshold approach to medical decision making. The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. The threshold approach to medical decision making can be used to compare point-of-care testing accuracy decrements with the lost utility of treatment due to send-out testing delays. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were &gt;10% of treatment costs.</description><issn>0272-989X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU9P3DAQxa0KVLbAB-CCfOQS6j9JbJ8QWrq00lYcWCRuluOMFy9Zm9oJFf30TbQUtarEaaSZ33sz9kPohJJzSoX4TJhgSqp7VlLGWV3XH9CMVhUraknv99BsmhcTcIA-5bwhhJZKlh_RAZdlqbisZmhzia8hQDKd_2WaDvAVWJ99DMV38-jDGi-S2cLPmB6xiwnfQge2n_o3Ifse8DOkPOSxH9oiDj2edz54azq8NE1Mpo_pBa8gT5IjtO9Ml-H4tR6iu8WX1fxrsby5_ja_XBaWl7IvoGGWtFI0TNEWmFIUHHdWCitqUhljwIFoJWkbyRoGrq1cUznhZFszJXjJD9HFzvdpaLbQWgj9-Dz9lPzWpBcdjdf_ToJ_0Ov4rClRUrCajQ5nrw4p_hjG6_XWZwtdZwLEIWumSkYV4YKPKN2hNsWcE7i3PZToKST9X0ij5vTvA98Uf1IZgfMdkM0a9CYOKYwf9o7jbyeIncI</recordid><startdate>20240401</startdate><enddate>20240401</enddate><creator>Schroeder, Lee F.</creator><creator>Rebman, Paul</creator><creator>Kasaie, Parastu</creator><creator>Kenu, Ernest</creator><creator>Zelner, Jon</creator><creator>Dowdy, David W.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2787-3608</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3744-9501</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240401</creationdate><title>A Generalizable Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Onsite versus Send-out Clinical Laboratory Testing</title><author>Schroeder, Lee F. ; Rebman, Paul ; Kasaie, Parastu ; Kenu, Ernest ; Zelner, Jon ; Dowdy, David W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-eb2c0d87b291de2991ef3fc87c7605aaaefe7d80db82b2efd5fb5f7f8d6297343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schroeder, Lee F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rebman, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasaie, Parastu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenu, Ernest</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelner, Jon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dowdy, David W.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schroeder, Lee F.</au><au>Rebman, Paul</au><au>Kasaie, Parastu</au><au>Kenu, Ernest</au><au>Zelner, Jon</au><au>Dowdy, David W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Generalizable Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Onsite versus Send-out Clinical Laboratory Testing</atitle><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><date>2024-04-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>307</spage><epage>319</epage><pages>307-319</pages><issn>0272-989X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><eissn>1552-681X</eissn><abstract>Background Laboratory networks provide services through onsite testing or through specimen transport to higher-tier laboratories. This decision is based on the interplay of testing characteristics, treatment characteristics, and epidemiological characteristics. Objectives Our objective was to develop a generalizable model using the threshold approach to medical decision making to inform test placement decisions. Methods We developed a decision model to compare the incremental utility of onsite versus send-out testing for clinical purposes. We then performed Monte Carlo simulations to identify the settings under which each strategy would be preferred. Tuberculosis was modeled as an exemplar. Results The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. When the sensitivity decrements of onsite testing were minimal, onsite testing tended to be preferred when send-out delays reduced clinical utility by &gt;20%. By contrast, when onsite testing incurred large reductions in sensitivity, onsite testing tended to be preferred when utility lost due to delays was &gt;50%. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were &gt;10% of treatment costs. Conclusions Decision makers can select onsite versus send-out testing in an evidence-based fashion using estimates of the percentage of clinical utility lost due to send-out delays and the relative accuracy of onsite versus send-out testing. This model is designed to be generalizable to a wide variety of use cases. Highlights The design of laboratory networks, including the decision to place diagnostic instruments at the point-of-care or at higher tiers as accessed through specimen transport, can be informed using the threshold approach to medical decision making. The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. The threshold approach to medical decision making can be used to compare point-of-care testing accuracy decrements with the lost utility of treatment due to send-out testing delays. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were &gt;10% of treatment costs.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>38449385</pmid><doi>10.1177/0272989X241232666</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2787-3608</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3744-9501</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0272-989X
ispartof Medical decision making, 2024-04, Vol.44 (3), p.307-319
issn 0272-989X
1552-681X
1552-681X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10987262
source Sage Journals Online
title A Generalizable Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Onsite versus Send-out Clinical Laboratory Testing
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T20%3A22%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Generalizable%20Decision-Making%20Framework%20for%20Selecting%20Onsite%20versus%20Send-out%20Clinical%20Laboratory%20Testing&rft.jtitle=Medical%20decision%20making&rft.au=Schroeder,%20Lee%20F.&rft.date=2024-04-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=307&rft.epage=319&rft.pages=307-319&rft.issn=0272-989X&rft.eissn=1552-681X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0272989X241232666&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2942190373%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-eb2c0d87b291de2991ef3fc87c7605aaaefe7d80db82b2efd5fb5f7f8d6297343%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2942190373&rft_id=info:pmid/38449385&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0272989X241232666&rfr_iscdi=true