Pathology tests: is the time for demand management ripe at last? | Journal of Clinical Pathology

Subscribe
Log In More

Log in via Institution
Log in via OpenAthens
Log in via ACP

Log in using your username and password
For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts

Username *

Password *

Forgot your log in details?Register a new account?
Forgot your user name or password?
Basket
Search More

Search for this keyword

Advanced search

Responses

Review

Pathology tests: is the time for demand management ripe at last?

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. [email protected] Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

No

Please describe the competing interests

PLEASE NOTE:

A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ Privacy Notice *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Demand management of microbiology
Malila Noone
Published on: 18 April 2016
Demand control in pathology
William SA Smellie
Published on: 18 April 2016

Published on: 18 April 2016
Demand management of microbiology
- Malila Noone, Consultant Microbiologist
Dear Editor
I fully support the view that the time is ripe for demand management of pathology tests.[1] The NHS cannot continue to provide an open access pathology service which is used indiscriminately. The service should be evidence-based. If we received specimens for culture which we believe are irrelevant we withhold culture and return a report with the comment:
"Culture of this specime...
Show More

Dear Editor
I fully support the view that the time is ripe for demand management of pathology tests.[1] The NHS cannot continue to provide an open access pathology service which is used indiscriminately. The service should be evidence-based. If we received specimens for culture which we believe are irrelevant we withhold culture and return a report with the comment:
"Culture of this specimen is not likely to be useful. Discuss with Consultant Microbiologist if indicated".
And since we cannot respond to a demand for "C & S" with a relevant report unless clinical data are provided, the comment "We were unable to process this specimen and produce a relevant report due to the lack of supporting data. Please repeat or discuss with the Consutlant Microbiologist" is used when such specimens are received. We do of course make telephone enquiries if we feel the specimen cannot be repeated.
Although I agree in principle with the recommendations made by Dr Gopal Rao et al, I note with dismay that I disagree with some of the specific recommendations regarding inappropriate microbiology specimens. This is due in part to local variations in the use of the laboratory but further debate of this issue is indicated.
Reference
(1) G Gopal Rao, M Crook, and M L Tillyer. Pathology tests: is the time for demand management ripe at last? J Clin Pathol 2003;56:243-248.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 18 April 2016
Demand control in pathology
- William SA Smellie, Chemical Pathologist
Dear Editor
Rao et al. describe a wide range of testing in pathology where targeted effort could improve appropriateness.[1]
One of the blocks to improving use of pathology testing is the limited evidence base. This should not stop us however trying to improve practice.[2] The medical literature contains a large resource of reviews and consensus guidance, some of which has an evidence base, and the...
Show More

Dear Editor
Rao et al. describe a wide range of testing in pathology where targeted effort could improve appropriateness.[1]
One of the blocks to improving use of pathology testing is the limited evidence base. This should not stop us however trying to improve practice.[2] The medical literature contains a large resource of reviews and consensus guidance, some of which has an evidence base, and there are many interventions, both published and unpublished, which have been introduced to attempt to improve use of tests.
Some 95% of primary care tests are contained within a limited repertoire of under 30 investigations across laboratory medicine. These make up half or more of the laboratory activity in many district general hospitals.[3] Standardised general practice activity data also show very large differences in testing activity between practices, and although it is difficult to define optimal testing activity, it is apparent that there is both over-use and under-use of tests and it is important that the pursuit of good practice includes both stimulating the increased use of under-used tests alongside demand control aspects of over-use.
To this end, a cross-laboratory medicine group has recently been established[4] with representation from the Royal College of Pathologists, Royal College of General Practitioners, Association of Clinical Pathologists, PRODIGY, Association of Clinical Biochemists, Association of Medical Microbiologists and British Society for Haematology. The purpose of this group initially is to construct an information resource, bringing together available guidance and evidence to answer a series of everyday questions affecting primary care users, and subsequently to examine ways in which this information can be disseminated and used in interventions.
In order to do this it would be valuable to hear from colleagues initially in the disciplines of clinical biochemistry, haematology, microbiology and immunology, who have set up specific initiatives to improve practice and/or would like to participate in this exercise. Many good ideas are slow to seed across the NHS and it is only by gathering these together and making them widely available, that the profession will be able to help to orchestrate a concerted approach to good practice.
References
(1) RAO GG, Crook M, Tillyer ML. Pathology tests: is the time for demand management ripe at last? J Clin Pathol 2003;56:243-248
(2) Barth JH, Jones RG. Indiscriminate investigations have adverse effects (letter) BMJ 2003;326:393.
(3) Smellie WSA, Galloway MJ, Chinn D. Benchmarking general practice use of pathology services: a model for monitoring change. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:476–80.
(4) Smellie WSA. Demand Management in primary care pathology. Bull R Coll Path 2003;122:16-19.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top