To estimate cost savings after implementation of customized electronic duplicate order alerts.

Alerts were implemented for microbiology tests at the largest public hospital in Victoria, Australia. These alerts were designed to pop up at the point of test ordering to inform the clinician that the test had previously been ordered and to suggest appropriate reordering time frames and indications.

In a 6-month audit of urine culture (our most commonly ordered test) after alert implementation, 2,904 duplicate requesters proceeded with the request and 2,549 tests were cancelled, for a 47% reduction in test ordering. For fecal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), our second most common test, there was a 54% reduction in test ordering. For our most commonly ordered expensive test, hepatitis C PCR, there was a 42% reduction in test ordering: 25 tests were cancelled.

Cancelled tests resulted in estimated savings of AU$52,382 (US$33,960) for urine culture, AU$34,914 (US$22,442) for fecal PCR, AU$4,506 (US$2,896) for hepatitis C PCR. For cancelled hepatitis B PCR and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) serology, the cost savings was AU$8,472 (US$5445). The estimated financial cost saving in direct hospital costs for these 6 assays was AU$100,274 (US$67,925) over the 6-month period. Environmental waste cost saving by weight was estimated to be 280 kg. Greenhouse gas footprint, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for cancelled EBV and CMV serology tests, resulted in a saving of at least 17,711 g, equivalent to driving 115 km in a standard car.

Customized alerts issued at the time of test ordering can have enormous impacts on reducing cost, waste, and unnecessary testing.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced protein 3 (TNFAIP3) is a multifunctional ubiquitin binding and editing enzyme that regulates inflammation. Genetic studies have implicated polymorphisms within the TNFAIP3 locus to the development of numerous immune-related diseases. This study evaluated the frequencies of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) within the exonic regions of the TNFAIP3 gene and an associated point mutation from the Illumina array among a predominantly Hispanic cohort.

Genomic DNA was obtained from 721 participants and sequencing of all TNFAIP3 exons and an intergenic point mutation (rs6920220) was performed. In-vitro functional assessment was performed by transfecting mutated TNFAIP3 constructs into TNFAIP3 knockout cells containing the NF-kB luciferase reporter and stimulating with TNFα. Comparative statistics were performed with Student’s t-test for continuous variables and chi-squared test for categorical variables.

Sequencing revealed two missense SNPs, rs146534657:A>G and rs2230926:T>G, both within exon 3 of TNFAIP3, which encodes the protein’s deubiquitinating enzymatic domain. Frequencies of all three point mutations differed significantly across racial groups (χ2-test, P = 0.014 to P < 0.001). Compared to Caucasians, rs146534657:A>G was overrepresented among Hispanics (odds ratio (OR) [95% CI] 4.05 [1.24−13.18]), and rs2230926:T>G was more prevalent among African-Americans (OR [95% CI] 3.65 [1.58−8.43]). In-vitro assays confirm rs146534657:A>G and rs2230926:T>G decrease the ability of TNFAIP3 to abrogate NF-κB activation by 2-fold (P < 0.01) and 1.7-fold (P < 0.01), respectively.

This study reports the frequency of rs146534657:A>G among Hispanics and is the first to evaluate its potential physiologic impact, establishing a basis for future research as a potential biomarker among this population.

To establish what factors are important for patients to engage in a new intervention for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and make recommendations to general practitioners (GPs) on preparing a patient for referral to such a service.

NICE guidelines recommend a prominent role for primary care in the management of patients with CFS/ME, with prompt diagnosis and appropriate referral for evidence-based treatments.

A qualitative study nested within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of two new nurse therapist delivered interventions. Semi-structured interviews carried out with 19 patients who had received pragmatic rehabilitation (PR) in the trial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and an iterative approach used to develop themes from the data set.

Factors that influence whether or not a patient engages with PR for CFS/ME are ensuring that the patient feels accepted and believed, that they accept the diagnosis, and that the model implicated by the treatment offered to the patient matches the model of illness held by the patient. If patients hold a clearly incompatible model of their illness, it is unlikely that they will engage with, and successfully complete, therapy. It is vital that the GP elicits and explores such illness beliefs either before making a referral to maximise patient engagement in therapy, or that an initial session with the therapist explores attitudes to the treatment model offered and then works with the patient’s model.

Community care has been criticised as a hazardous policy associated with high rates of adverse events. There is little research evidence as to the truth of this claim.

Best available evidence from public records, interviews, case notes, key workers and general practitioners was assembled to establish: (a) which of the 514 subjects initially identified as having psychotic illnesses had died during an average follow-up of 4.9 years; (b) care currently received by all 286 subjects originally selected for interview; and (c) rates of major adverse events and of admission for these 286 individuals.

Twenty-eight natural and 11 unnatural deaths had occurred. Among subjects still living at the end of the follow-up, 84% were in contact with specialist mental health services and 11% only with primary care services. Rates of serious violence, imprisonment and homelessness were relatively low. Forty-one per cent had been admitted at least once during a mean follow-up of 3.2 years and 20% at least once under the Mental Health Act. After adjustment, there were no significant differences between standard and intensive care sectors.

Rates of adverse events and slipping through the net’ are relatively low among individuals receiving community-based services, whether intensive or standard care.