The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care

Kurt Kroenke, James F. Hanley, John B. Copley, Joseph I. Matthews, Charles E. Davis, Charles J. Foulks, John L. Carpenter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although urinalysis is one of the most frequently ordered tests in primary care, its usefulness in screening has not been demonstrated. A retrospective review of 1,607 admission urinalyses for inpatients in a referral/community hospital identified 861 as clinically indicated and 746 as routine. Routine urinalyses were abnormal less frequently than clinically indicated urinalyses (18.1% vs 39.6%) and when abnormal, were responded to less often (33.3% vs 75.4%). Forty-five (6.0%) of the routine urinalyses yielded an abnormality that led to diagnostic action. Of these, 18 were normal on repeat testing and 17 were considered unlikely to represent significant disease. Therefore, only ten (1.3%) of the routine urinalyses affected patient therapy. In eight of these cases, the abnormality was pyuria, of which six proved to be asymptomatic bacteriuria. The admission urinalysis as a routine test had little impact on patient care in the authors' institution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)238-242
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume1
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1986
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Urinalysis
Patient Care
Pyuria
Bacteriuria
Community Hospital
Inpatients
Primary Health Care
Referral and Consultation

Keywords

  • admission tests
  • diagnosis
  • diagnostic
  • diagnostic tests
  • laboratory
  • pyuria
  • routine
  • urine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Kroenke, K., Hanley, J. F., Copley, J. B., Matthews, J. I., Davis, C. E., Foulks, C. J., & Carpenter, J. L. (1986). The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1(4), 238-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02596190

The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care. / Kroenke, Kurt; Hanley, James F.; Copley, John B.; Matthews, Joseph I.; Davis, Charles E.; Foulks, Charles J.; Carpenter, John L.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 4, 07.1986, p. 238-242.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kroenke, K, Hanley, JF, Copley, JB, Matthews, JI, Davis, CE, Foulks, CJ & Carpenter, JL 1986, 'The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care', Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 238-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02596190
Kroenke K, Hanley JF, Copley JB, Matthews JI, Davis CE, Foulks CJ et al. The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1986 Jul;1(4):238-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02596190
Kroenke, Kurt ; Hanley, James F. ; Copley, John B. ; Matthews, Joseph I. ; Davis, Charles E. ; Foulks, Charles J. ; Carpenter, John L. / The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1986 ; Vol. 1, No. 4. pp. 238-242.
@article{bf75c28da0a742ad9d6d76ec0d95dd56,
title = "The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care",
abstract = "Although urinalysis is one of the most frequently ordered tests in primary care, its usefulness in screening has not been demonstrated. A retrospective review of 1,607 admission urinalyses for inpatients in a referral/community hospital identified 861 as clinically indicated and 746 as routine. Routine urinalyses were abnormal less frequently than clinically indicated urinalyses (18.1{\%} vs 39.6{\%}) and when abnormal, were responded to less often (33.3{\%} vs 75.4{\%}). Forty-five (6.0{\%}) of the routine urinalyses yielded an abnormality that led to diagnostic action. Of these, 18 were normal on repeat testing and 17 were considered unlikely to represent significant disease. Therefore, only ten (1.3{\%}) of the routine urinalyses affected patient therapy. In eight of these cases, the abnormality was pyuria, of which six proved to be asymptomatic bacteriuria. The admission urinalysis as a routine test had little impact on patient care in the authors' institution.",
keywords = "admission tests, diagnosis, diagnostic, diagnostic tests, laboratory, pyuria, routine, urine",
author = "Kurt Kroenke and Hanley, {James F.} and Copley, {John B.} and Matthews, {Joseph I.} and Davis, {Charles E.} and Foulks, {Charles J.} and Carpenter, {John L.}",
year = "1986",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/BF02596190",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "238--242",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The admission urinalysis - Impact on patient care

AU - Kroenke, Kurt

AU - Hanley, James F.

AU - Copley, John B.

AU - Matthews, Joseph I.

AU - Davis, Charles E.

AU - Foulks, Charles J.

AU - Carpenter, John L.

PY - 1986/7

Y1 - 1986/7

N2 - Although urinalysis is one of the most frequently ordered tests in primary care, its usefulness in screening has not been demonstrated. A retrospective review of 1,607 admission urinalyses for inpatients in a referral/community hospital identified 861 as clinically indicated and 746 as routine. Routine urinalyses were abnormal less frequently than clinically indicated urinalyses (18.1% vs 39.6%) and when abnormal, were responded to less often (33.3% vs 75.4%). Forty-five (6.0%) of the routine urinalyses yielded an abnormality that led to diagnostic action. Of these, 18 were normal on repeat testing and 17 were considered unlikely to represent significant disease. Therefore, only ten (1.3%) of the routine urinalyses affected patient therapy. In eight of these cases, the abnormality was pyuria, of which six proved to be asymptomatic bacteriuria. The admission urinalysis as a routine test had little impact on patient care in the authors' institution.

AB - Although urinalysis is one of the most frequently ordered tests in primary care, its usefulness in screening has not been demonstrated. A retrospective review of 1,607 admission urinalyses for inpatients in a referral/community hospital identified 861 as clinically indicated and 746 as routine. Routine urinalyses were abnormal less frequently than clinically indicated urinalyses (18.1% vs 39.6%) and when abnormal, were responded to less often (33.3% vs 75.4%). Forty-five (6.0%) of the routine urinalyses yielded an abnormality that led to diagnostic action. Of these, 18 were normal on repeat testing and 17 were considered unlikely to represent significant disease. Therefore, only ten (1.3%) of the routine urinalyses affected patient therapy. In eight of these cases, the abnormality was pyuria, of which six proved to be asymptomatic bacteriuria. The admission urinalysis as a routine test had little impact on patient care in the authors' institution.

KW - admission tests

KW - diagnosis

KW - diagnostic

KW - diagnostic tests

KW - laboratory

KW - pyuria

KW - routine

KW - urine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022994319&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022994319&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF02596190

DO - 10.1007/BF02596190

M3 - Article

C2 - 3772598

AN - SCOPUS:0022994319

VL - 1

SP - 238

EP - 242

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 4

ER -