Abstract Background Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a serious and potentially life-threatening systemic disease. Guidelines recommend that a diagnosis may be established if the patient has any two of1:a typical clinical history/examinationserum amylase >3 times the upper limit of normalRadiological (CT) evidence consistent with AP Once established, further repeat amylase testing is not indicated and does not guide management, nor provide prognostic value2. Previous QIP cycles carried out in James Cook University Hospital (JCUH) between 2021-2023 showed that 47% of patients with established AP had repeated amylase done unnecessarily. Interventions were implemented in JCUH and re-evaluated. Method The present QIP is a third cycle retrospective evaluation of the number of repeat serum amylase tests performed on patients with a diagnosis of AP, between 01/10/2023 to 21/01/2024. Of a total 1368 patients admitted, 63 patients (n=63) were identified for inclusion, by confirming their diagnosis of AP within their discharge letters. Data collection was completed by reviewing electronic notes and investigation results on our local investigations platform (WebICE). 1 year prior to data collection the intervention, a ‘pop-up', was implemented into WebICE to invite the clinician to consider if the repeat amylase test requested was clinically indicated before proceeding. Results Of the 63 patients identified, 100% had serum amylase tested on admission and were diagnostic in 62% of patients. 19 patients (30%) had amylase re-requested, a significant decrease from 47% in previous cycles. Among the patients with repeat amylases requested, 7 patients had amylase repeated twice. None of the documented indications to repeat amylase were clinically justified, with the most common indication being ‘for monitoring’. When comparing to cycles 1 and 2, we saw an improvement in the mean rates of amylase re-requesting from 2.4/patient, down to 1.37/patient in cycle 3 (Figure 1). Figure 1 – Mean rates of repeat amylase per patient across all QIP cycles to date Conclusion Our simple intervention, a ‘pop-up’ in our investigations requesting platform, resulted in a significant improvement over previous cycles, reducing the burden on our laboratories, costs of our general surgical service and improving patient satisfaction during their admission. However, there are still repeated amylases being performed without clear indication or patient benefit. Further interventions should be considered including, increasing awareness among healthcare personnel and re-evaluating and enhancing the effectiveness of the pop-up reminder in our local requesting platform. Re-evaluation will be completed in 6-12 months’ time.
Read full abstract