Nov 27, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations, News From Dark Daily
November workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 to forward-thinkers among clinical laboratories, IVD manufacturers, and lab IT vendors offered many examples where clinical laboratory diagnostics can add value and improve patient outcomes
DATELINE: ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico—Here in this mile-high city, a special Project Santa Fe Workshop devoted to teaching the principles of Clinical Lab 2.0 attracted an impressive roster of innovators and forward-thinkers in clinical laboratory medicine. In attendance were leaders from a select number of the nation’s first-rank health systems and hospitals, along with executives from In Vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers, lab IT companies, other lab service companies, attendees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from institutions in Canada, Germany, Israel, India, and the UK.
Their common goal was to learn more about the emerging clinical and business model for medical laboratories known as “Clinical Lab 2.0.” A key objective of the workshop was to help those lab leaders in attendance develop strategic action plans for their own lab organizations, so as to take advantage of the insights coming from the vast information streams generated by their clinical laboratories. These services would be in support the evolving needs of health systems, hospitals physicians, and health insurers to more effectively provide integrated patient-centered clinical care.
Medical Laboratories Can Use Clinical Lab 2.0 as a Path to Adding Value
Clinical Lab 2.0 is the clinical and business model of the future for medical laboratories, assert the developers of this concept. “Clinical Lab 2.0 describes the attributes needed by all medical laboratories that want to succeed in a healthcare system organized to provide precision medicine, keep people out of hospitals, and where providers—including labs—are reimbursed based on the value they provide,” stated Khosrow Shotorbani, CEO of TriCore Reference Laboratories, one of the organizers of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop.
“Clinical Lab 2.0 is the path medical labs will need to follow if they are to continue providing relevant lab testing services and generate the reimbursement necessary for them to maintain a high level of clinical excellence and financial stability going forward,” he added. “This is the next generation of medical laboratory organization and operation.”
Lab 1.0 Was Lab Clinical/Business Model for 50 Years
For more than 50 years, Clinical Lab 1.0 was the model for labs,” noted James Crawford, MD, PhD, Executive Director and Senior Vice President of Laboratory Services at Northwell Health Laboratories and an organizer of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop. “Lab 1.0 is transactional, focusing on generating high quality analytical data on specimens received, but without assembling these data into integrative clinical care programs. In the simplest sense, Clinical Lab 1.0 focused on generating ever-greater numbers of specimens to drive down average cost-per-test, while maximizing revenue in a fee-for-service system.
This chart shows the attributes of Clinical Lab 1.0 and compares those to the attributes of Clinical Lab 2.0. Lab 1.0 is transactional and based on increasing test volume to lower costs and maximize fee-for-service revenue. Clinical Lab 2.0 is integrative in ways that add value to lab testing services. (Graphic copyright Project Santa Fe.)
“But fee-for-service payment is going away,” he said. “Increasingly, clinical laboratories will be paid based on the value they provide. This payment can be in the form of bundled reimbursement, as a per-member-per-month payment, or as a share of the budgeted payment made to a health system, an accountable care organization (ACO), or a multispecialty provider network. As these alternative forms of provider payment become dominant, to earn a fair share of reimbursement, all medical laboratories will need a clinical strategy to deliver lab testing services that measurably contribute to improved patient outcomes while reducing the overall cost of care. This requires looking at medical laboratories’ contribution to effective delivery of the full dollar of the healthcare spend, not just the three-cents-on-the-dollar representing laboratory testing.”
Innovators in Clinical Laboratory Industry Identify New Ways to Add Value
There are already a handful of innovative clinical laboratory organizations that have clinical experience in moving past the Lab 1.0 paradigm of reporting an accurate test result within the accepted turnaround time. Leaders within these labs are collaborating with physicians and frontline care givers specifically to help them better utilize lab tests in ways that directly improve the speed and accuracy of the overall diagnostic sequence, as well as achieving therapeutic optimization as rapidly as possible. These collaborations are tracking the improvement in patient outcomes while demonstrating how better use of lab tests can lower the total cost per episode of care.
During the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop, case studies were presented demonstrating how clinical laboratory leaders are taking the first steps to practice Clinical Lab 2.0 so as to achieve added value with medical laboratory tests. The case studies included:
· A project to improve diagnosis and treatment of sepsis at Geisinger Health System.
· A project at Henry Ford Health to collaborate with physicians to more appropriately utilize lab tests and build consensus in support of a new lab test formulary.
· A multi-hospital initiative at Northwell Health to collaborate with physicians and nurses in the use of creating testing to make earlier, more accurate diagnoses of acute kidney injury during inpatient admissions, and better guide decisions to treat.
· A partnership involving TriCore Reference Laboratory and certain health insurers in New Mexico where the laboratory—using lab test data (some generated by emergency room testing) and other clinical data—alerts the insurers to women who are pregnant, thus allowing the insurers to provide timely guidance to the women’s care teams with the goal of improving prenatal care.
The Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop convened on November 13-14 in Albuquerque, N.M. A broad spectrum of innovative professionals from the five Project Santa Fe member laboratories (above) were there to teach the lessons learned from their first successful efforts to collaborate with physicians and create added value from medical laboratory diagnostics. Other attendees included progressive lab leaders from several of the nation’s most prominent health systems, along with thought leaders from the IVD, lab software, and lab association sectors. (Photo copyright Project Santa Fe.)
Project Santa Fe Workshop: A Well-Attended Lab ‘Think Tank’
Participants attending the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop included hospital lab administrators, pathologists, and clinical laboratory industry executives. The importance of this workshop is reflected in the educational grants and financial support provided by leading in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, lab IT companies, and other lab industry vendors. The lab industry vendors included:
· Abbott Laboratories
· ARUP Laboratories
· Beckman Coulter
· DiaSorin
· MedSpeed
· Roche Diagnostics
· Siemens Healthineers
· Sysmex
Also providing educational grants and similar support were:
· American Clinical Laboratory Association
· CAP Today
· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
· Mayo Medical Laboratories
· The Dark Report
Project Santa Fe was launched in 2016 by clinical lab leaders from five of the nation’s most respected integrated health systems:
· TriCore Reference Laboratories;
· Henry Ford Health;
· Geisinger Health;
· Kaiser Permanente Northern California; and,
· Northwell Health.
Described as a think-tank venture, the organizers are committed to implementing projects that demonstrate how lab tests can be used in ways that add value, and then publish the resulting projects, along with data about improved patient outcomes and reductions in healthcare costs, in peer-reviewed journals. Multi-institutional studies will be required to validate the findings and outcomes from the added-value clinical collaborations initiated at the different medical laboratory organizations participating in Project Santa Fe.
Another primary goal is to share the lessons learned from these innovative projects with other like-minded pathologists, lab administrators, and lab managers. In May, Project Santa Fe organizers led a one-day workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management. The workshop in Albuquerque on November 13-14 was the second learning opportunity available to medical laboratory professionals. A November 2018 workshop is planned.
—Robert L. Michel
Related Information:
Project Santa Fe Workshop
Improving American Healthcare through “Clinical Lab 2.0”: A Project Santa Fe Report
Laboratory 2.0: Changing the Conversation
CEO Describes Characteristics of the Clinical Lab 2.0 Model: Five Health System Labs Using Project Santa Fe To Demonstrate Value
Moving to Clinical Lab 2.0: Deliver More Value! Get Paid More Dollars!
Lab Innovators Advocate Need for Clinical Lab 2.0: Lab 1.0 Is the Low-Paid Commodity Lab, While Lab 2.0 Gets Paid More for the Value It Contributes
Using the Laboratory Value Pyramid and Clinical Lab 2.0 to Position Your Lab to Add Value in the Era of Population Health, Precision Medicine, and Value-Based Payment
Jul 26, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Decline in hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) overall since 2010 attributed to increased attention to safety protocols and practices by hospital staff in cooperation with clinical laboratory services
It’s now been almost nine years since the Medicare Program stopped paying hospitals and other providers for certain hospital-acquired conditions (HACs). Included in this list are hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). The goal is to substantially reduce the number of HACs and HAIs, thus improving patient outcomes, while substantially reducing the healthcare costs associated with these conditions.
So, almost nine years into these programs, has there been progress on these goals? This is a question of key interest to Medical laboratories and pathology groups because they have a front-line role in working with clinicians to diagnose and treat HAIs, while also looking to identify the transmission of HAIs within the hospital.
A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), indicates that there has been progress in the goal of reducing HACs. The AHRQ report noted a 21% decline in HACs between 2010 and 2015. Data collected during that time indicates a reduction of more than 3.1 million HACs and nearly 125,000 patient deaths due to HACs.
In 2015 alone, nearly one million fewer HAC incidents occurred. The reduction saved “approximately $28 billion in healthcare costs,” an outcome which, the AHRQ report notes, is the result of increased attention to safety protocols in hospitals and a “period of concerted effort by hospitals throughout the country to reduce adverse events.”
Clinical Pathologists/Laboratories Play Key Role in HAI Prevention
Though many reported incidents are associated with adverse drug events, HAIs have been significantly reduced in recent years due to focused efforts on infection prevention. The report notes that clinical pathologists have become vital players in infection prevention programs, and that increased coordination between hospital medical laboratories and clinicians played a crucial role in the reduction.
Eileen O’Rourke is an Infection Preventionist at the Lankenau Medical Center in Philadelphia. And she has served as a leader and consultant for hospital-based infection prevention programs in Pennsylvania since 1984. In an article on the Wolters Kluwer Pharmacy OneSource blog, O’Rourke noted that successful infection prevention and control requires development of “a highly visible and administratively supported infection prevention and control program with qualified and trained personnel.” Clinical pathologists are part of that support team, providing surveillance, testing, and interpretation of data essential for identifying epidemiological origins of infection and pathogen distribution. And the vital services that clinical laboratories provide to reduce HAIs center on surveillance, prevention, and control.
The chart above was calculated on US Dollars in 2012. Since then, thanks to contributions by medical laboratories and pathologists in collaboration with hospitals, those costs have decreased significantly. (Image copyright: MLive.com.)
In an article for Lab Testing Matters, John Daly MD, Chief Medical Officer at the Commission on Office Laboratory Accreditation, and former Director of Clinical Laboratories for the Duke University Health System, highlights the importance of surveillance. He states that it is “an essential element of an infection control program” providing “data to identify infected patients and determine the site of infection” as well as “factors that contributed to the infection.” Medical laboratories must, Daly stresses, provide “easy access to high-quality and timely data and give guidance and support on how to use its resources for epidemiologic purposes.”
Daly argues that medical laboratories function as liaisons to clinical services, working to “improve the quality of specimens sent to the laboratory and promoting appropriate use of cultures and other laboratory tests.” The laboratory should, according to Daly, be involved in all aspects of the infection control programs. This ensures:
- Proper specimen collection;
- Accurate and rapid testing; and
- Accurate reporting of laboratory data.
Laboratory Data Provide ‘Early Warning’ for HAI Surveillance Systems
Robert A. Weinstein, MD, wrote in his 1978 article, “The Role of the Microbiology Laboratory in Surveillance and Control of Nosocomial Infections,” that medical laboratories and pathologists are central to prevention and control of HAIs. Laboratory records, Weinstein remarked, serve as important data sources that can identify early spread of infection, thus becoming an “early warning system” for a potential outbreak of infections. The sampling that laboratories perform identifies not only the strain of infection, but the method by which infection is spread, and the best treatment options. Nearly 40 years later his statements ring truer than ever, as anatomic pathology laboratory data continues to reveal patterns of infection faster and more precisely than ever before.
Sarah Mahoney, PhD, is a research scientist at Navitor Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass. In an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, she states that in surveilling patterns of infection, pathologists also decipher the source of infection. Mahoney wrote that it is “necessary to identify the causative organism” for surveillance and management control of HAIs. She also noted that pathologists must strive to discriminate between “hospital- and community-acquired infection” in order to provide clinicians with guidance for treatment, and to map “infection transmission within a clinical setting.”
Hospitals Rely on Medical Laboratories and Pathologists to Help Reduce HAIs
The concerted effort to reduce HACs and HAIs was inspired by incentives put forth by the US government. In 2008-2009, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ceased paying for hospital-acquired conditions, including HAIs. Since that time, hospitals have worked to prevent and better manage HAIs. In the years since those incentives went into effect, hospitals have increasingly relied on medical laboratories and pathologists to provide necessary testing to prevent HAIs.
The CDC’s Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs create a further need for lab professionals to be involved in the identification, prevention, and treatment of HAIs. The core elements of the program state that the role of diagnostic laboratory testing—especially rapid diagnostic tests—is imperative in providing the necessary data needed to combat HAIs. The pressure is on for hospitals to reduce HAIs further to save lives and reduce costs. Thus, there is increased pressure on medical laboratories as well.
In an article in the College of American Pathologists’ online journal Cap Today,
Larry Massie, MD, Professor of Pathology at the University of New Mexico, and Chair of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine for the New Mexico VA Health Care System in Albuquerque, states that turn-around time is crucial for HAIs, but that laboratories often have difficulty keeping up with large volumes of samples. Massie suggests the use of new technologies could speed up turnaround time, particular for large healthcare providers.
The fight to reduce HAIs and HACs is showing significant progress, and clinical laboratories, working in tandem with clinicians and prevention programs, are a fundamental part of the success of HAI reduction. Clinical pathologists and laboratories often are the front line in prevention and management of HAIs, and the work they do in identifying infections is essential in the assessment and control of those infections.
— Amanda Warren
Related Information:
National Scorecard on Rates of Hospital-Acquired Conditions 2010 to 2015: Interim Data from National Efforts to Make Health Care Safer
How Hospitals Can Reduce Hospital-Acquired Infections
HAI Data and Statistics
Hospital Acquired Infection: Molecular Study and Infection Control Guidelines
Rapid Sequencing and Characterization of Pathogens in Hospital-Acquired Infections
The Role of the Microbiology Laboratory in Surveillance and Control of Nosocomial Infections
Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Pressure’s on to Halt Nosocomial Infections
Hospital Acquired Infections
Surveillance of Hospital-acquired Infections: A Model for Settings with Resource Constraints
The Laboratory and Infection Control
Role of the Microbiologist in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Study Finds Occupying Hospital Bed Previously Used by Patient Receiving Antibiotics Increases Odds of Developing C.diff Infection
Feb 24, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
Experts point to the challenges: not only is there a lack of consensus in how to best measure patient satisfaction, but there are also different opinions as to what are the right steps providers should take to improve the patient experience
In today’s healthcare industry, “Patient Satisfaction” is high on the list of phrases likely to be heard in any medical facility, including in pathology groups and clinical laboratories. With recent and ongoing changes to the way that providers are paid, patient satisfaction as a measure of quality will only gain in importance.
But if there is consensus that it is important to monitor patient satisfaction and use that data to guide efforts to improve how patients view their care, there is certainly no consensus on the most effective ways to measure patient satisfaction. Nor is there much consensus on how providers, including medical laboratories, should use patient satisfaction data to improve the patient experience.
This challenge is addressed by Deirdre Mylod, PhD, who pointed out in a PatientEngagementHIT article, “The exercise is not to make consumers happy. The exercise is to reduce patient suffering.” Mylod is Executive Director of the Institute for Innovation, a nonprofit research collaborative that publishes relevant and practical findings concerning patient satisfaction that help healthcare organizations deliver better care. (more…)
Feb 5, 2016 | Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
Called ‘ViroCap,’ this new diagnostic technology is able to discover more viruses in patient samples, as compared to PCR genome sequencing tests
It could be the ultimate multi-analysis medical laboratory test ever. Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have developed a diagnostic test that they claim tests for any virus infecting people and animals.
The new test, called ViroCap, detects viruses that standard tests based on genome sequencing cannot, according to a university statement.
Viruses Make for a Popular Research Subject
Are virus tests going, well, viral? It was just a few weeks ago that Dark Daily reported on research at Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) aimed at unlocking virus detection beyond one pathogen at a time. (See Dark Daily, “Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Institute Develop Blood Test That Reveals a Patient’s Viral History; Could Reduce Unnecessary Clinical Laboratory Testing,” December, 30, 2015.)
The HHMI research resulted in VirScan, an alternative to medical laboratory tests that test for specific viruses one at a time, and which can detect all diseases a patient has had over his or her lifetime, according to an HHMI news statement about the new technology. (more…)
May 20, 2015 | Laboratory Hiring & Human Resources, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
More collaboration between radiologists and pathologists could speed up diagnoses, increase accuracy, and improve patient outcomes, say advocates of an integrated diagnostic service
For years, certain pathologists and radiologists have floated the idea that an integrated diagnostic service involving both medical specialties could improve patient safety and contribute to improved patient outcomes. Now that the U.S. healthcare system is encouraging tighter integration of clinical services, advocates of an integrated diagnostic service involving radiology and pathology believe that the era of integrated diagnostics may be soon upon us.
There is appeal to the concept of an integrated diagnostic service that would deliver a single, unified report to the referring physician. For example, pathologists and radiologists often work together to work up certain types of cancer. They bring complementary skills to the diagnostic process. Often, particularly in complex cases, their collaboration improves the precision of their respective diagnoses and points the physician to the most appropriate therapies for the patient. (more…)
