There is limited knowledge on the incidence, diagnostic yield, and cost associated with inappropriate repeat urine cultures. The factors that affect repeat urine culturing practices are not well understood. We conducted a retrospective study of adult inpatients who had ≥1 urine culture performed during their hospitalization between January 2015 and February 2018. We analyzed the proportion of inappropriate repeat urine cultures performed <48 h after the index culture. We defined an inappropriate repeat urine culture to be a repeat urine culture performed following a negative index culture or a repeat urine specimen obtained from the same urinary catheter. Overall, 28,141 urine cultures were performed on 21,306 patients. There were 2,060 (7.3%) urine cultures repeated in <48 h. Of these, 1,120 (54.4%) urine cultures were inappropriate. Predictors for inappropriate repeat urine cultures included collection of the initial urine sample for culture in the emergency department (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.70 to 6.78), male gender (aOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.84), congestive heart failure (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38), and a longer hospital stay (aOR, 1.01 per day; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.01). A patient with an index urine culture obtained from an indwelling catheter (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80) was less likely to have an inappropriate repeat culture. Among 1,120 negative index urine cultures, only 4.7% of repeat cultures were positive for bacteriuria. The estimated laboratory charges for inappropriate repeat urine cultures were $16,800 over the study period. Among inpatients, over half of all urine cultures repeated in <48 h were inappropriate. This offers an opportunity for diagnostic stewardship and optimization of antimicrobial use.

We aimed to determine the number of repeated cholesterol (RC) tests and the ratio of unnecessary-repeated cholesterol (URC) tests among patients admitted to Pamukkale University Hospital (Denizli, Turkey) and provide solutions to avoid URC testing.

Total cholesterol (T-cholesterol) tests (N = 86,817) between June 2014 and May 2015 were evaluated. The tests performed more than once per patient were determined as RC test (N = 28,811). RC test with an interval shorter than 4 weeks were determined as URC test (N = 3968) according to the shortest retest interval stated in ACC/AHA blood cholesterol guideline. RC testing included internal medicine, surgery and paediatric outpatients and inpatients. Reference change value (RCV) of total cholesterol was calculated.

The 33.1% of the T-cholesterol tests were RC tests (N = 28,811), 13.7% of them were URC tests (N = 3968). Our RCV value was 25%. The percentage change between consecutive tests was less than RCV in 86.1% (N = 3418) of URC tests. URC tests were performed more frequently in patients with desirable total cholesterol value (P < 0.001).

There is a significant part of repeated T-cholesterol tests requested in our hospital. URC test requests can be evaluated by laboratories and the obtained data should be shared with clinicians. Laboratories can calculate RCV for the tests they performed and report this value with the test result. To prevent from URC tests, a warning plug-in can be added to hospital information software in accordance with guidelines to prevent from URC test requests.

Laboratory testing is the single highest-volume medical activity and drives clinical decision-making across medicine. However, the overall landscape of inappropriate testing, which is thought to be dominated by repeat testing, is unclear. Systematic differences in initial vs. repeat testing, measurement criteria, and other factors would suggest new priorities for improving laboratory testing.

A multi-database systematic review was performed on published studies from 1997-2012 using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Over- vs. underutilization, initial vs. repeat testing, low- vs. high-volume testing, subjective vs. objective appropriateness criteria, and restrictive vs. permissive appropriateness criteria, among other factors, were assessed.

Overall mean rates of over- and underutilization were 20.6% (95% CI 16.2-24.9%) and 44.8% (95% CI 33.8-55.8%). Overutilization during initial testing (43.9%; 95% CI 35.4-52.5%) was six times higher than during repeat testing (7.4%; 95% CI 2.5-12.3%; P for stratum difference <0.001). Overutilization of low-volume tests (32.2%; 95% CI 25.0-39.4%) was three times that of high-volume tests (10.2%; 95% CI 2.6-17.7%; P<0.001). Overutilization measured according to restrictive criteria (44.2%; 95% CI 36.8-51.6%) was three times higher than for permissive criteria (12.0%; 95% CI 8.0-16.0%; P<0.001). Overutilization measured using subjective criteria (29.0%; 95% CI 21.9-36.1%) was nearly twice as high as for objective criteria (16.1%; 95% CI 11.0-21.2%; P = 0.004). Together, these factors explained over half (54%) of the overall variability in overutilization. There were no statistically significant differences between studies from the United States vs. elsewhere (P = 0.38) or among chemistry, hematology, microbiology, and molecular tests (P = 0.05-0.65) and no robust statistically significant trends over time.

The landscape of overutilization varies systematically by clinical setting (initial vs. repeat), test volume, and measurement criteria. Underutilization is also widespread, but understudied. Expanding the current focus on reducing repeat testing to include ordering the right test during initial evaluation may lead to fewer errors and better care.

Advances in medical laboratory technology have driven major changes in the practice of laboratory medicine over the past two decades by the development of automated, cross-disciplinary single platform analysers. This has led to the blurring of boundaries between traditional disciplines and the emergence of core automated or blood science laboratories. This paper was commissioned by the Union of European Medical Specialists to examine the changing role of laboratory-based physicians in the light of these advances by focusing on the added value of expert interpretation of test results and resultant improvements in clinical outcomes. The paper also considers the broad range of responsibilities of laboratory-based physicians and the difficulties in precisely measuring how this translates into improved clinical outcomes. Given its provenance, the paper concentrates predominantly on the role of laboratory-based physicians while acknowledging the essential and vital role of scientists in running diagnostic laboratory services.

Unnecessary repeat requesting of tests can make up a large proportion of a laboratory's workload. This audit set out to establish the size of this problem and to identify the circumstances under which these repeat requests were made in a government tertiary hospital immunology laboratory. The numbers of tests for immunoglobulin measurement, common autoantibodies, and tumour markers that were repeated over a 12 month period were analysed by interrogating the Delphic laboratory computer system using a management information system for raw data enquiry protocol. Repeat requests within 12 weeks of a previous request made up 16.78% of the total workload. The total cost of the tests was estimated at 132 151 US dollars. The waste of technician time and reagents as a result of unnecessary repeat testing is excessive. Many of these tests might be eliminated with the use of interventions such as computerised reminders.