- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT05707364
Feasibility and Efficacy Study for a Pre-visit Lab Protocol for Adult Medicine Physicals
Study Overview
Status
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
This is a research study about implementing a clinic workflow to encourage pre-visit laboratory testing, such as blood work. Resulting labs is a critical yet time consuming task for primary care clinicians. Ideal and timely management of both normal and abnormal lab results is best done when the patient and clinician are face to face in an office visit. This allows patients to ask questions and clinicians to most efficiently make recommendations, adjust or start medications, or order follow up testing. There is a notable and measurable time commitment to the in-basket burden of sharing lab results via a patient portal or phone calls, advising or counseling on these results and answering subsequent patient inquiries. Furthermore, in a consumer-centric health system and one in which routine blood tests are ordered for employment/insurance purposes and peace of mind, over-ordering of lab testing and the subsequent associated anxiety of out of range results are both costly to the patient and the health care system. Going "upstream" of the in-basket work associated with lab results requires a workflow that maximizes staff time, emphasizes patient engagement and understanding and most efficiently uses clinician time to guide good patient care.
The aims of this research study include to measure the feasibility of implementing a pre-visit lab testing clinic workflow, which involves clinicians using the electronic medical record (EMR) to indicate preferences that upcoming labs be completed prior to their scheduled physical so that results can be discussed during the office visit, and to study the efficacy of a pre-visit lab workflow as it relates to clinician in-basket time, staff time, patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and frequency of patient encounters post visit.
The study has multiple components to test these aims. Approximately 4 sites will be engaged to implement the study workflow for all prospective patients seen at the designated offices. Site physicians and their clinic staff will be invited to attend a Lunch & Learn to discuss the intent to implement pre-visit lab testing and confirm the details of the clinic workflow. Data will be reviewed for progress reports and modifications to the clinical workflow can be made at that time to adjust for implementation barriers.
Longitudinal data from a brief survey will be collected from clinical staff (e.g. providers, practice managers, nurses, medical assistants, etc.) at three time points: prior to study implementation, at 6-months of implementation, and at 1-year of implementation. Practices will act as their own controls with their patients with labs resulted on/post-visit compared to those resulted pre-visit. Data sources will include EDW data, Press-Ganey scores, and physician surveys to assess time burden and satisfaction with workflow.
A secondary study component will involve anonymous patient surveys collected at every annual physical or wellness visit for the duration of the study. Additionally, patient data will be collected from existing sources (EPIC/Clarity, Press-Ganey, Enterprise Data Warehouse, billing, etc.) to assess the effectiveness of the workflow as it relates to patient understanding of their care.
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Illinois
-
Evanston, Illinois, United States, 60201
- Northshore University Healthsystem
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Sampling Method
Study Population
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Aged 18 or older.
- Patients must have had an annual physical/ wellness visit within 30 days of completing the survey.
- Patient/ providers willing to complete the survey.
Exclusion Criteria:
• Participants younger than 18 years of age.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
Cohorts and Interventions
Group / Cohort |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Practices Engaged for Pre-Visit Lab Clinic Workflow
Providers and patients/ at the designated practice sites
|
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change from baseline pre-lab test rate
Time Frame: 3 months prior to study implementation and then ongoing to month 24 to calculate monthly proportions
|
Count of pre-lab tests completed out of the total number of annual physical/wellness visits to participating providers to participating providers
|
3 months prior to study implementation and then ongoing to month 24 to calculate monthly proportions
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change from baseline clinician time spent resulting labs
Time Frame: baseline (prior to study implementation), at 6-months of implementation, and at 1-year of implementation
|
Time questions asked in provider questionnaire
|
baseline (prior to study implementation), at 6-months of implementation, and at 1-year of implementation
|
|
Change from baseline provider satisfaction
Time Frame: baseline (prior to study implementation), at 6-months of implementation, and at 1-year of implementation
|
Agreement metrics (1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agreed) asked in provider questionnaire.
Higher scores indicate a better outcome.
|
baseline (prior to study implementation), at 6-months of implementation, and at 1-year of implementation
|
|
Change from baseline patient satisfaction
Time Frame: baseline, 1 year, and 2 year (i.e. annually at every wellness/ annual physical visit)
|
Agreement metrics (1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agreed) asked in provider questionnaire.
Higher scores indicate a better outcome.
|
baseline, 1 year, and 2 year (i.e. annually at every wellness/ annual physical visit)
|
|
Change from baseline frequency of patient encounters post visit
Time Frame: 3 months prior to study implementation and then ongoing to month 24 to calculate monthly proportions
|
Enterprise Data Warehouse data pull
|
3 months prior to study implementation and then ongoing to month 24 to calculate monthly proportions
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Nadim Ilbawi, MD, Northshore University Healthsystem
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Sinsky CA, Sinsky TA, Rajcevich E. Putting Pre-Visit Planning Into Practice. Fam Pract Manag. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(6):34-8. No abstract available.
- American Medical Association. 10 steps to pre-visit planning that can produce big savings. Sept 4, 2015. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/sustainability/10-steps-pre-visit-planning-can-producebig-savings
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- EH22-450
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Burnout, Professional
-
Fundacion Arturo Lopez PerezNot yet recruitingBurnout Syndrome | Professional Burnout
-
The Fourth Hospital of ShijiazhuangCompletedProfessional BurnoutChina
-
Suleyman Demirel UniversityCompletedNurse | Professional Burnout | Nurse Training | Professional ValuesTurkey
-
Region SkaneLund University; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research; County...CompletedProfessional BurnoutSweden
-
Mayo ClinicCompletedJob Stress | Professional Burnout | Professional StressUnited States
-
Colleen J KleinCompletedJob Stress | Professional BurnoutUnited States
-
michal rollTel Aviv University; Association for Children at RiskUnknownBurnout, Professional | Professional-Patient Relations
-
Kırıkkale UniversityCompletedHealth Personnel Attitude | Job Satisfaction | Professional BurnoutTurkey
-
University of Colorado, DenverMayo Clinic; Physicians FoundationRecruiting
-
Chang Gung Memorial HospitalChang Gung UniversityNot yet recruitingNurse's Role | Gender | Professional Burnout
Clinical Trials on Pre-visit Lab Workflow
-
University of California, DavisActive, not recruitingLung CancerUnited States
-
University of California, DavisCompletedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2 | Multiple Chronic ConditionsUnited States
-
Brigham and Women's HospitalNational Institute on Aging (NIA); University of Southern CaliforniaNot yet recruitingDeprescribing | Statin Prescribing
-
Henry Ford Health SystemCompletedOrthopedic DisorderUnited States
-
Rhode Island HospitalCenters for Disease Control and Prevention; HRSA/Maternal and Child Health...CompletedBullying | Exposure to Violent EventUnited States
-
Wake Forest University Health SciencesInnoTech Precision MedicineWithdrawnOropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma | Human Papillomavirus InfectionUnited States
-
Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)London School of Economics and Political ScienceCompletedPregnancy
-
University of MichiganCompleted
-
Central Hospital, Nancy, FranceCompletedIntra-abdominal Infection | Acute Mesenteric Ischemia | Sepsis Bacterial | Digestive InflammationFrance
-
Kaiser PermanenteNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)CompletedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2