By offering DTC preventative gene sequencing, hospital leaders
hope to help physicians better predict cancer risk and provide more accurate
diagnoses
Two Boston health systems, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), are the latest to open preventative gene sequencing clinics and compete with consumer gene sequencing companies, such as 23andMe and Ancestry, as well as with other hospital systems that already provide similar services.
This may provide opportunities for clinical laboratories. However, some experts are concerned that genetic sequencing may not be equally available to patients of all socioeconomic classes. Nor is it clear how health systems plan to pay for the equipment and services, since health insurance companies continue to deny coverage for “elective” gene sequencing, or when there is not a “clear medical reason for it, such as for people with a long family history of cancer,” notes STAT.
Therefore, not everyone is convinced of the value of gene sequencing to either patients or hospitals, even though advocates tout gene sequencing as a key element of precision medicine.
Is Preventative Genetic Sequencing Ready for the Masses?
Brigham’s Preventive Genomics Clinic offers comprehensive DNA sequencing, interpretation, and risk reporting to both adults and children. And MGH “plans to launch its own clinic for adults that will offer elective sequencing at a similar price range as the Brigham,” STAT reported.
The Brigham and MGH already offer similar gene sequencing services as other large health systems, such as Mayo Clinic and University of California San Francisco (UCSF), which are primarily used for research and cancer diagnoses and range in price depending on the depth of the scan, interpretation of the results, and storage options.
However, some experts question whether offering the
technology to consumers for preventative purposes will benefit anyone other
than a small percentage of patients.
“It’s clearly not been demonstrated to be cost-effective to promote this on a societal basis,” Robert Green, MD, MPH, medical geneticist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of genetics at Harvard, told STAT. “The question that’s hard to answer is whether there are long-term benefits that justify those healthcare costs—whether the sequencing itself, the physician visit, and any downstream testing that’s stimulated will be justified by the situations where you can find and prevent disease.”
Additionally, large medical centers typically charge more
for genomic scans than consumer companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry. Hospital-based
sequencing may be out of the reach of many consumers, and this concerns some
experts.
“The idea that genomic sequencing is only going to be
accessible by wealthy, well-educated patrons who can pay out of pocket is
anathema to the goals of the publicly funded Human Genome Project,” Jonathan
Berg, MD, PhD, Genetics Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, told Scientific
American.
And, according to the American Journal of Managed Care, “It’s estimated that by 2021, 100 million people will have used a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test. As these tests continue to gain popularity, there is a need for educating consumers on their DTC testing results and validating these results with confirmatory testing in a medical-grade laboratory.”
This is why it’s critical that clinical laboratories and
anatomic pathology groups have a genetic testing and gene sequencing strategy,
as Dark
Daily reported.
David Bick, MD, Chief Medical Officer at the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology and Medical Director of the Smith Family Clinic for Genomic Medicine, told Scientific American, “there’s just more and more interest from patients and families not only because of 23andMe and the like, but because there’s just this understanding that if you can find out information about your health before you become sick, then really our opportunity as physicians to do something to help you is much greater.”
In an article he penned for Medium, Robert Green, MD, MPH (shown above counseling a patient), medical geneticist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of genetics at Harvard, wrote, “The ultimate aim of our Genomes2People Research Program is to contribute to the transformation of medicine from reactive to proactive, from treatment-oriented to preventive. We are trying to help build the evidence base that will justify societal decision to make these technologies and services accessible to anyone who wants them, regardless of means, education or race and ethnicity.” (Photo copyright: Wall Street Journal.)
Is Preventative Genomics Elitist?
As large medical centers penetrate the consumer genetic
testing market some experts express concerns. In a paper he wrote for Medium,
titled, “Is Preventive Genomics Elitist?” Green asked, “Is a service like this
further widening the inequities in our healthcare system?”
Green reported that while building the Preventive Genomics Clinic at Brigham, “we … struggled with the reality that there is no health insurance coverage for preventive genomic testing, and our patients must therefore pay out of pocket. This is a troubling feature for a clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is known for its ties to communities in Boston with diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.”
Most of Brigham’s early genetics patients would likely be “well-off,
well-educated, and largely white,” Green wrote. “This represents the profile of
typical early adopters in genetic medicine, and in technology writ large. It
does not, however, represent the Clinic’s ultimate target audience.”
More Data for Clinical Laboratories
Nevertheless, preventive genomics programs offered by large
health systems will likely grow as primary care doctors and others see evidence
of value.
Therefore, medical laboratories that process genetic
sequencing data may soon be working with growing data sets as more people reach
out to healthcare systems for comprehensive DNA sequencing and reporting.
Medical laboratory leaders need to take opportunities to stay abreast of government and payer activity, particularly as payer audits become tougher, say legal experts
Even compliant clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups are reporting tougher audits and closer scrutiny of the medical lab test claims they submit for payment. This is an unwelcome development at a time when falling lab test prices, narrowing networks, and more prior-authorization requirements are already making it tough for labs to get paid for the tests they perform.
Clinical laboratory leaders can expect continued scrutiny of
their labs’ operations and financials as government and commercial payers move
forward with invasive programs and policies designed to ferret out fraud and
bad actors.
Federal officials are focusing their investigations on healthcare providers who mismanage or inappropriately use Medicare and Medicaid programs, while commercial payers are closely scrutinizing areas such as genetic testing prior authorization, say healthcare attorneys with Cleveland Ohio-based McDonald Hopkins, LLC.
“The government is looking at fraud, waste, and abuse, and all the different ways they come into play,” said Elizabeth Sullivan, Esq., a Member and Co-Chair of the firm’s Healthcare Practice Group, in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. “We anticipate there will be more enforcement [of fraud and abuse laws] centered around different issues—anything that can be a false claim.”
Specifically, government officials will key in on violations of the Stark Law, EKRA (the Eliminating Kickback in Recovery Act of 2018), and other anti-kickback statutes and laws, Sullivan said.
“And clinical laboratories, by virtue of the type of
services and service arrangements they offer, will continue to be a target,” she
added.
Medical laboratory leaders also must prepare for aggressive tactics by insurance companies. “On the commercial side, payers are getting more aggressive and more willing to take things to ligation if they don’t get what they want and don’t see a settlement that satisfies their concerns over issues,” said Courtney Tito, Esq., also a Member with McDonald Hopkins, in the Dark Daily interview.
Current Investigations Likely to Impact Clinical
Laboratories
Sullivan and Tito advise clinical labs to be aware of the
following issues being fast-tracked by government and private payers:
EKRA (Eliminating Kickback in Recovery Act of 2018).
The TPE audits program, according to CMS, is focused on providers with high claim error rates or unusual billing practices. During a TPE, a Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) works with a provider to identify and correct errors.
“The TPE audits are real hot right now. We are seeing a lot
of clients go through this,” Tito said.
Feds Crack Down on Genetic Testing Fraud Schemes
Genetic testing is another “hot button” issue for
enforcement by government and private payers, Sullivan and Tito state.
CMS is taking action against testing companies and
practitioners who submitted more than $1.7 billion in claims to Medicare, the
statement added.
The scheme involved medical laboratories conducting the genetic tests, McDonald Hopkins noted in an Alert about the DOJ investigation. The alert described how the scam operated:
Scam recruiters approached Medicare
beneficiaries at health fairs;
In exchange for a DNA sample (in the form of a
cheek swab) and a copy of the victim’s driver’s license, the “representative”
offered a free genetic test;
Representatives allegedly asked the seniors’
doctors to sign-off on test orders. If the seniors’ physicians refused, the
scammers offered kickbacks to doctors already in their group;
Clinical laboratories that performed the tests
were reimbursed from Medicare and, allegedly, shared the proceeds with the scammers.
“Although these opportunities may seem appealing as an
additional revenue source for providers, it is always important to review the
regulatory requirements as well as the potential anti-kickback statute and
Stark implications for any new arrangement,” Sullivan and Tito wrote in the McDonald
Hopkins Alert article.
Criminal Behavior in CMS Programs
Effective Nov. 4, 2019, CMS issued a final rule intended to stop fraud before it happens by keeping “unscrupulous providers” out of the federal healthcare programs in the first place, states a CMS news release.
Additionally, EKRA establishes “criminal penalties for unlawful payments for referrals to recovery homes and clinical treatment facilities,” Dark Daily recently reported. However, as the e-briefing points out, it is unclear whether EKRA applies to clinical laboratories.
Nevertheless, Sullivan points out that, “Even without EKRA,
the anti-kickback statute applies to any arrangement between individuals. And,
it is good to have an attorney look at those arrangements. What your sales reps
are doing in the field, how they are communicating, and their practices warrant
oversight. EKRA just makes it all the more important.”
During an upcoming Dark Daily webinar, attorneys Elizabeth Sullivan (left) and Courtney Tito (right) of McDonald Hopkins, LLC, will advise clinical laboratory leaders and financial staff on how to prepare for future aggressive payer audits, rigid enforcement of fraud and abuse laws, and more. (Photos copyright: LinkedIn/Dark Daily.)
Clinical Laboratories Need Compliance Plan, Focus on
Payers
With so many legal requirements and payer programs, Sullivan
advises medical labs and pathology group practices to work with resources they
trust and to have a compliance plan at the ready. “Have resources in place,
including but not limited to a compliance officer, a committee, and someone who
is spending time on these issues. Monitoring government enforcement and payer
activity is the most critical,” she said.
To assist labs in remaining fully informed on these critical
compliance topics, and the federal government’s latest legislation to combat
fraud, Dark Daily is offering a webinar on November 20th at 1pm Eastern
time. Sullivan and Tito will offer their insights and advice on how labs should
prepare for CMS’ battle to reign in fraud and commercial payers’ increased
scrutiny into prior authorizations.
Clinical laboratory leaders, compliance officers, and
finance staff will benefit greatly from this crucial resource.
How medical laboratories can show value through process improvement methods and analytics will be among many key topics presented at the upcoming Lab Quality Confab conference
Quality management is the clinical laboratory’s best strategy for surviving and thriving in this era of shrinking lab budgets, PAMA price cuts, and value-based payment. In fact, the actions laboratories take in the next few months will set the course for their path to clinical success and financial sustainability in 2020 and beyond.
But how do medical laboratory managers and pathologists address these challenges while demonstrating their lab’s value? One way is through process improvement methods and another is through the use of analytics.
Clinical pathologists, hospital lab leaders, and independent lab executives have told Dark Daily that the trends demanding their focus include:
Ensuring needed resources and appropriate tests,
while the lab is scrutinized by insurance companies and internally by hospital
administration;
“Our impact on patient care, in many cases, is very
indirect. So, it is difficult to point to outcomes that occur. We know things
we do matter and change patient care, but objectively showing that is a real
struggle. And we are being asked to do more than we ever had before, and those
are the two big things that keep me up at night these days,” he added.
This is where process improvement methods and analytics are
helping clinical laboratories understand critical issues and find opportunities
for positive change.
“You need to have a strategy that you can adapt to a changing landscape in healthcare. You have to use analytics to guide your progress and measure your success,” Patricia Nortmann, System Director of Laboratory Services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare, Erlanger, Ky., told Dark Daily.
Clinical Laboratories Can Collaborate Instead of Compete
Prior to a joint venture with TriHealth in Cincinnati, St. Elizabeth lab leaders used data to inform their decision-making. Over about 12 years preceding the consolidation of labs they:
Implemented front-end automation outside the core area and in the microbiology lab.
“We are now considered a regional reference lab in the state
of Kentucky for two healthcare organizations—St. Elizabeth and TriHealth,”
Nortmann said.
Thanks to these changes, the lab more than doubled its
workload, growing from 2.1 million to 4.3 million outreach tests in the core
laboratory, she added.
Christopher Doern, PhD (left), Director of Microbiology and Associate Professor of Pathology at Virginia Commonwealth University Health System; Patricia Nortmann (center), System Director of Laboratory Services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare; and Joseph Cugini (right), Manager Client Solutions at Health Network Laboratories, will present practical solutions and case studies in quality improvement and analytics for clinical laboratory professionals at the 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab, October 15-16, 2019, at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, Ga. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
Using Analytics to Test the Tests
Clinical laboratories also are using analytics and information technology (IT) to improve test utilization.
At VCH Health, Doern said an analytics solution interfaces
with their LIS, providing insights into test orders and informing decisions
about workflow. “I use this analytics system in different ways to answer
different questions, such as:
How are clinicians using our tests?
When do things come to the lab?
When should we be working on them?
“This is important for microbiology, which is a very delayed
discipline because of the incubation and growth required for the tests we do,”
he said.
Using analytics, the lab solved an issue with Clostridium
difficile (C diff) testing turnaround-time (TAT) after associating it with
specimen transportation.
Inappropriate or duplicate testing also
can be revealed through analytics. A physician may reconsider a test after discovering
another doctor recently ordered the same test. And the technology can guide
doctors in choosing tests in areas where the related diseases are obscure, such
as serology.
Avoiding Duplicate Records While
Improving Payment
Another example of process
improvement is Health Network Laboratories (HNL) in Allentown, Pa. A team there established an enterprise master patient index (EMPI) and implemented digital tools to find and eliminate
duplicate patient information and improve lab financial indicators.
“The system uses trusted sources of data to make sure data is clean and the lab has what it needs to send out a proper bill. That is necessary on the reimbursement side—from private insurance companies especially—to prevent denials,” Joseph Cugini, HNL’s Manager Client Solutions, told Dark Daily.
HNL reduced duplicate records in its database from 23% to
under one percent. “When you are talking about several million records, that is
quite a significant improvement,” he said.
Processes have improved not only on the billing side, but in
HNL’s patient service centers as well, he added. Staff there easily find
patients’ electronic test orders, and the flow of consumers through their
visits is enhanced.
Learn More at Lab Quality Confab Conference
Cugini, Doern, and Nortmann will speak on these topics and more during the 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab (LQC), October 15-16, 2019, at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, Ga. They will offer insights, practical knowledge, and case studies involving Lean, Six Sigma, and other process improvement methods during this important 2-day conference, a Dark Dailynews release notes.
Register for LQC, which is produced by Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report, online at https://www.labqualityconfab.com/register, or by calling 512-264-7103.
Medical fraudsters are targeting Medicare recipients with schemes to persuade them to agree to genetic tests advertised as informing them if they are predisposed to specific chronic diseases or cancer
Medicare scams involving orders for unnecessary, expensive testing are not new. However, clinical laboratory managers and anatomic pathologists need to be aware—particularly those working in hospital and health system labs—that an entirely new wave of fraud involving medical laboratory testing is gaining momentum. This time, instead of specialty cardiology, toxicology, and pain management testing, the scam involves genetic tests.
The shifting focus to genetic tests by fraudsters is a
recent development to which many hospital-based medical laboratory
professionals may be unaware. One reason that the hospital lab managers can be
extraordinarily compliant with federal and state laws is because they don’t
want to threaten the license of their hospital. So, hospital lab staff often
are unaware of the types and extent of fraud involving certain lines of clinical
lab testing that surface in the outpatient/outreach market.
The growing number of fraudulent activities associated with genetic tests is now an issue for federal healthcare fraud investigators. Former US attorney Robert M. Thomas, Jr., a whistleblower attorney, adjunct professor at Boston University School of Law, and a civil rights advocate, wrote in STAT, “What’s going on here is the same pattern of activity that has occurred throughout the healthcare system: a great majority of law-abiding actors and a few that seek out opportunities to game the system of government reimbursement. If you can get a saliva swab and a Medicare number [to provide a specimen for a genetic test] from an unsuspecting senior and falsify a doctor’s order (or find a shady doctor to write one), there’s an easy four-figure sum to be had.”
This aligns with a recent fraud alert from the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) that states: “Scammers are offering Medicare beneficiaries ‘free’ screenings or cheek swabs for genetic testing to obtain their Medicare information for identity theft or fraudulent billing purposes. Fraudsters are targeting beneficiaries through telemarketing calls, booths at public events, health fairs, and door-to-door visits.
“Beneficiaries who agree to genetic testing or verify
personal or Medicare information may receive a cheek swab, an in-person
screening or a testing kit in the mail, even if it is not ordered by a
physician or medically necessary.
“If Medicare denies the claim, the [Medicare] beneficiary
could be responsible for the entire cost of the test, which could be thousands
of dollars.”
In a STAT column, former US attorney Robert M. Thomas, Jr. (above), noted that “All a scammer must do is find a medical laboratory willing to split the profit from the testing once the DNA samples are in hand. With more and more labs opening, there are plenty of doors upon which to knock.” This makes it imperative that clinical laboratory managers train their staff to identify and question potentially fraudulent test orders. (Photo copyright: Twitter.)
How the Scam Works
As with similar fraud cases, the scamsters pay inducements
to often-unaware patients, physicians, and others to encourage an order for a
genetic test. They then bill federal health programs and private insurers at
inflated prices.
Thomas describes one such scenario used to increase genetic
test orders. “A typical scheme might go something like this: A scammer offers
free ice cream sundaes, gift cards, or even casino chips at a retirement
community or ‘Medicare expo’ for anyone who would like to hear about the
exciting new technology of genetic testing and what it might reveal about ‘your
family’s risk of cancer’ or some other come-on,” explained Thomas. “The scammer
describes this sophisticated technology and downplays or ignores the medical
necessity criteria and the need for a doctor’s order. He or she persuades some
attendees to provide saliva samples and gets identifying information, such as
the senior’s name, date of birth, and Medicare number.
“The scammer then approaches a testing lab, saying, ‘I can find you a lot more business and get you a lot more patients if you share the proceeds with me.’ This, of course, violates the federal anti-bribery law known as the Anti-Kickback Act. But the lure of high-volume profits can be strong enough for some to ignore that roadblock,” he noted.
What Medical Laboratories Need to Know about Fraud and
Genetic Tests
Regardless of how the fraudster proceeds—whether asking the
lab company outright to split profits or by simply sending a high volume of the
same genetic test to the lab without explanation—clinical laboratory managers
should be alert to such activities.
Thomas writes: “An ethical lab would detect that something
is amiss with such a request [involving a genetic test]. An alert lab might
question how an individual, who is not a doctor, has gotten so many saliva
samples and [so much] personal information from so many ‘patients.’ Other [genetic
testing] lab companies may simply play the game without asking enough
questions, or worse, knowing that the tests are not medically necessary, as
required by the rules. The promise of easy money can be just too alluring.”
Physicians and medical laboratories that participate in
these scams are in violation of the federal anti-bribery laws. In “Federal
Investigations into Alleged Kickback Schemes between Hospitals and Physicians
Increase in Number and Scope,” Dark Daily reported on new OIG
investigations into hospitals alleged to have violated anti-kickback
legislation.
Current Cases Involving Genetic Testing Scams
Fraudulent medical test ordering schemes are an ongoing problem that Dark Daily has repeatedly covered. Though the genetic testing aspect is relatively new, there are several recent and current cases that outline the consequences of participating in the new scam.
For example, in February GenomeDx Biosciences Corp. (GenomeDx) agreed to pay $1.99 million to settle a federal case regarding unnecessary genetic testing. In this case, post-operative prostate cancer patients were given a genetic test called Decipher even though they “did not have risk factors necessitating the test,” a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release states. The DOJ claimed GenomeDx fraudulently billed Medicare for the tests, violating the False Claims Act.
A similar federal case involved a doctor who was charged with ordering genetic tests for patients he never saw or treated. Though the doctor was licensed to practice medicine in Florida, the “patients” in question resided in Oklahoma, Arizona, Tennessee, and Mississippi. One patient testified to having responded to a Facebook ad that offered a $100 gift card “for people interested in genetic testing,” a press release from the US Attorney’s Office District of New Jersey stated.
One important recommendation is that medical laboratory
professionals learn how to spot and question potentially fraudulent testing
requests. This shift to genetic testing is just the latest threat. Even clinical
labs that are well prepared could be caught unaware, particularly if the
fraudster sends genetic test orders to multiple labs to process what are
probably medically-unnecessary tests.
Especially for busy hospital emergency departments, avoiding blood culture contamination is a constant challenge for those tasked with collecting blood culture specimens
Better, faster diagnosis and treatment of sepsis continues to be a major
goal at hospitals, health networks, and other medical facilities throughout the
United States. Yet microbiologists
and clinical
laboratory managers continue to be frustrated with how frequently
contaminated blood culture specimens show up in the laboratory.
A recent poll of more than 200 healthcare professionals who
attended a
sponsored webinar hosted by Dark Daily, showed that nearly 10% of
those who responded reported an overall blood culture contamination rate in
their hospitals at above 4%.
However, the arrival of new technology may provide hospital
staff with a way to reduce contamination rates in blood culture specimens, in
ways that improve patient outcomes.
The effectiveness of a new tool, the Steripath Initial Specimen Diversion
Device (ISDD), is being demonstrated in a growing number of prominent
hospitals in different regions of the United States. What will be particularly
intriguing to clinical laboratory professionals is that the ISDD is capable of
collecting blood while minimizing the problems caused by human factors, micro-organisms,
and skin plugs or fragments. This device was developed by Magnolia Medical Technologies
of Seattle, Wash.
The ISDD isolates the initial 1.5
to 2.0 mL aliquot of the blood culture sample, which is most likely to be
contaminated with microscopic skin fragments colonized with bacteria. The device diverts this initial aliquot into a sequestration
chamber, mechanically isolating it from the rest of the sample, and then
automatically opens an independent sterile pathway into blood culture collection
bottles.
Such technology may be welcomed by medical laboratory
professionals based in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. That’s
because it is the lab staff that typically identifies a contaminated blood
culture specimen and must go back to the nurses, staffers, and physicians on
the wards to have them redraw an acceptable specimen that will produce an
accurate, reliable result. Patients under these circumstances generally
continue on unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, and their length of stays
have been reported to increase by two days on average.
Problem of Decentralized Phlebotomy
One problem contributing to high blood culture rates is
that, in many hospitals and health networks, phlebotomy has been decentralized
and is no longer managed by the clinical laboratory.
“I’ve seen the havoc decentralized phlebotomy wreaks on contamination rates of blood culture rates,” stated Dennis Ernst, Director of the Center for Phlebotomy Education based in Mio, Mich. “That staffing model, which swept through the hospital industry in the late 1990s, may have looked good on paper, but I can count the number of facilities that have successfully decentralized on the fingers of one hand. And I don’t know of any decentralized setting that has an acceptable blood culture contamination rate.”
Dennis Ernst, MT(ASCP), NCPT(NCCT) (above), Director of the Center for Phlebotomy Education, shared his expertise during a recent webinar hosted by Dark Daily. Ernst considers blood culture contamination to be among the “low-hanging fruit” in every medical laboratory that can be easily and permanently corrected with the proper approach. (Photo copyright: Dennis Ernst.)
Ernst, a medical
technologist and educator, has seen the
difficulty in lowering contamination rates in a decentralized,
multidisciplinary workforce. He has worked for more than 20 years advocating
for best practices in the diagnostic blood collection industry and has helped clinical
laboratory facilities achieve a 90% reduction in their contamination rates. Ernst considers blood
culture contamination to be among the “low-hanging fruit” in every laboratory
that can be easily and permanently corrected with the proper approach.
“One statistic we’ve heard over and over again is that the American Society of Microbiology established the ‘threshold’ for blood culture contamination to be 3%,” Ernst said. “I believe strongly that a 1% contamination rate or less is what should be required and that it’s not only achievable, but sustainable.”
Regardless of
staffing mix, blood culture contamination is a common problem in the emergency
department, Ernst explained during his presentation, “Evidence-Based
Technology to Reduce Blood Culture Contamination, Improve Patient Care, and
Reduce Costs in Your Clinical Lab or Hospital,” which is available
free for streaming.
Improving Patient Care and Reducing Avoidable Costs
With unnecessary
antibiotic use, increased length of stay, and the cost of unnecessary
laboratory testing at issue, hospitals are tracking blood culture collection
results and exploring ways to reduce episodes of blood culture contamination. On these and other healthcare quality
improvement aims, providers are publishing study results on contamination
reduction and potential direct and indirect hospital cost savings. For example:
At the University of Nebraska, a
prospective, controlled, matched-pair clinical study showed an 88% reduction in
blood culture contamination with a 12-month sustained rate of 0.2% when
Steripath was used by phlebotomists in the ED. The author estimated the institution
would save approximately $1.8 million if the technology was adopted
hospitalwide, reported an article in Clinical
Infectious Diseases in July 2017.
Florida-based Lee
Health system’s microbiology laboratory reported an 83% reduction in
contamination rates comparing their standard method to ISDD for a seven-month
trial period. Their systemwide potential cost avoidance estimates ranged from
$4.35 million to nearly $11 million, reported an article in the Journal of Emergency
Nursing in November 2018.
Researchers from Massachusetts General reported that
ISDD is the single most effective intervention so far explored for reducing
costs related to false-positive blood cultures, potentially saving the typical
250- to 400-bed hospital $1.9 million or $186 per blood culture and preventing
34 hospital-acquired conditions (including three C.
difficile cases). The recent article “Model to Evaluate the Impact of
Hospital-based Interventions Targeting False-Positive Blood Cultures on
Economic and Clinical Outcomes” in the Journal
of Hospital Infection explains more.
Blood Facilities Should be Tracking Their Contamination
Rate
One of the biggest challenges faced during blood sample
collection is making sure an organism is not inadvertently introduced into the
blood. Therefore, importance has been placed on clinical laboratories and other healthcare providers
developing policies and procedures to limit the introduction of likely
contaminants.
“I believe most places monitor blood culture contamination,
but they are not doing much that is effective to reduce it,” Ernst said.
“That’s a real problem.”
To assist healthcare providers in blood culture quality
improvement, the free webinar, “Evidence-Based Technology to Reduce Blood
Culture Contamination, Improve Patient Care, and Reduce Costs in Your Clinical
Lab or Hospital,” available on-demand through Dark Daily, can be
downloaded by clicking here,
or by pasting the URL “https://darkintelligenceprogramsondemand.uscreen.io/programs/evidence-based-technology-to-reduce-blood-culture-contamination-improve-patient-care-and-reduce-costs-in-your-clinical-lab-or-hospital”
into a web browser.
This program, which polled more than 200 healthcare
professionals, explores the clinical and economic significance of blood culture
contamination, the downstream impact of false-positive blood cultures, and case-study
evidence of sustained reductions in contamination.
Using animal blood, the researchers hope to improve the accuracy of AI driven diagnostic technology
What does a cheetah, a tortoise, and a Humboldt penguin have
in common? They are zoo animals helping scientists at Saarland University in
Saarbrücken, Germany, find biomarkers that can help computer-assisted diagnoses
of diseases in humans at early stages. And they are not the only animals
lending a paw or claw.
In their initial research, the scientists used blood samples
that had been collected during routine examinations of 21 zoo animals between
2016 and 2018, said a news
release. The team of bioinformatics
and human genetics experts
worked with German zoos Saarbrücken and Neunkircher for the study. The project
progresses, and thus far, they’ve studied the blood of 40 zoo animals, the
release states.
This research work may eventually add useful biomarkers and
assays that clinical
laboratories can use to support physicians as they diagnose patients,
select appropriate therapies, and monitor the progress of their patients. As medical
laboratory scientists know, for many decades, the animal kingdom has been
the source of useful insights and biological materials that have been
incorporated into laboratory assays.
“Measuring the molecular blood profiles of animals has never
been done before this way,” said Andreas
Keller, PhD, Saarland University Bioinformatics Professor and Chair for
Clinical Bioinformatics, in the news release. The Saarland researchers published
their findings in Nucleic Acids
Research, an Oxford
Academic journal.
“Studies on sncRNAs [small non-coding RNAs] are often largely based on homology-based information, relying on genomic sequence similarity and excluding actual expression data. To obtain information on sncRNA expression (including miRNAs, snoRNAs, YRNAs and tRNAs), we performed low-input-volume next-generation sequencing of 500 pg of RNA from 21 animals at two German zoological gardens,” the article states.
Can Animals Improve the Accuracy of AI to Detect Disease
in Humans?
However, the researchers perceived an inability for AI and machine learning to
discern real biomarker patterns from those that just seemed to fit.
“The machine learning methods recognize the typical
patterns, for example for a lung tumor or Alzheimer’s disease. However, it is
difficult for artificial intelligence to learn which biomarker patterns are
real and which only seem to fit the respective clinical picture. This is where
the blood samples of the animals come into play,” Keller states in the news
release.
“If a biomarker is evolutionarily conserved, i.e. also
occurs in other species in similar form and function, it is much more likely
that it is a resilient biomarker,” Keller explained. “The new findings are now
being incorporated into our computer models and will help us to identify the
correct biomarkers even more precisely in the future.”
Andreas Keller, PhD (left), and zoo director Richard Francke (right), hold a pair of radiated tortoises that participated in the Saarland University study. (Photo copyright: Oliver Dietze/Saarland University.)
“Because blood can be obtained in a standardized manner and
miRNA expression patterns are technically very stable, it is easy to accurately
compare expression between different animal species. In particular, dried blood
spots or microsampling devices appear to be well suited as containers for
miRNAs,” the researchers wrote in Nucleic Acids Research.
Animal species that participated in the study include:
Additionally, human volunteers contributed blood specimens
for a total of 19 species studied. The scientists reported success in capturing
data from all of the species. They are integrating the information into their
computer models and have developed a public database of their
findings for future research.
“With our study, we provide a large collection of small RNA
NGS expression data of species that have not been analyzed before in great
detail. We created a comprehensive publicly available online resource for
researchers in the field to facilitate the assessment of evolutionarily
conserved small RNA sequences,” the researchers wrote in their paper.
Clinical Laboratory Research and Zoos: A Future
Partnership?
This novel involvement of zoo animals in research aimed at improving
the ability of AI driven diagnostics to isolate and identify human disease is
notable and worth watching. It is obviously pioneering work and needs much
additional research. At the same time, these findings give evidence that there
is useful information to be extracted from a wide range of unlikely sources—in
this case, zoo animals.
Also, the use of artificial intelligence to search for
useful patterns in the data is a notable part of what these researchers
discovered. It is also notable that this research is focused on sequencing DNA
and RNA of the animals involved with the goal of identifying sequences that are
common across several species, thus demonstrating the common, important
functions they serve.
In coming years, those clinical laboratories doing genetic
testing in support of patient care may be incorporating some of this research
group’s findings into their interpretation of certain gene sequences.
