How to successfully influence laboratory test utilization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994, we discovered that our hospital was higher than the 75th percentile in the average number of laboratory tests performed per inpatient discharge compared with other teaching hospitals with a case mix index of greater than 1.35. Because of the diversity and volume of tests offered, no single project would have significantly affected the number of tests ordered per patient. Pathologists together with the administrative director and section managers identified areas of potential improvement, noting tests that were high volume, expensive, difficult to perform, or of questionable medical benefit. We relied on a combination of administrative changes and physician education initiatives to influence physician test-ordering behavior. The impact of these initiatives was measured by reviewing monthly revenue and usage reports before and after changes were implemented. Each of these initiatives helped to gradually decrease the average number of inpatient tests per discharge from 44 in the first quarter of 1994 to 29 in the third quarter of 1999. Compared with our peer group, our hospital's rank has steadily improved from the 75th to the 15th percentile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".