Literature DB >> 21906396

Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial.

Christian B Mogensen1, Anders Borch, Ivan Brandslund.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Emergency Departments (ED) have a high flow of patients and time is often crucial. New technologies for laboratory analysis have been developed, including Point of Care Technologies (POCT), which can reduce the transport time and time of analysis significantly compared with central laboratory services. However, the question is if the time to clinical action is also reduced if a decisive laboratory answer is available during the first contact between the patient and doctor. The present study addresses this question: Does a laboratory answer, provided by POCT to the doctor who first attends the patient on admission, change the time to clinical decision in commonly occurring diseases in an ED compared with the traditional service from a central laboratory?
METHODS: We performed a randomised clinical trial with parallel design and allocation ratio 1:1. The eligibility Criteria were: All patients referred from General Practitioner or another referring doctor suspected for a deep venous thrombosis (DVT), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute appendicitis (AA) or acute infection (ABI). The outcome measure was the time spend from the blood sample was taken to a clinical decision was made.
RESULTS: The study period took place in October--November 2009 and from February to April 2010. 239 patients were eligible for the study. There was no difference between the groups suspected for DVT, ACS and AA, but a significant reduction in time for the ABI group (p:0.009), where the median time to decision was reduced from 7 hours and 33 minutes to 4 hours and 38 minutes when POCT was used. Only in the confirmation of ABI the time to action was significantly shorter.
CONCLUSIONS: Fast laboratory answers by POCT in an ED reduce the time to clinical decision significantly for bacterial infections. We suggest further studies which include a sufficient number of patients on deep venous thrombosis, acute appendicitis and acute coronary syndrome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21906396      PMCID: PMC3180400          DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-49

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med        ISSN: 1757-7241            Impact factor:   2.953


  11 in total

Review 1.  Point of care testing.

Authors:  C P Price
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-05-26

2.  A preliminary evaluation of the AQT90 FLEX Tnl immunoassay.

Authors:  Pirjo Hedberg; Gitte Wennecke
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Implementation of a point-of-care satellite laboratory in the emergency department of an academic medical center. Impact on test turnaround time and patient emergency department length of stay.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lee-Lewandrowski; Daniel Corboy; Kent Lewandrowski; Julia Sinclair; Steven McDermot; Theodore I Benzer
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.534

4.  Analytical and clinical validation of a new point-of-care testing system for determination of D-Dimer in human blood.

Authors:  Johannes J Sidelmann; Jørgen Gram; Anette Larsen; Kathrine Overgaard; Jørgen Jespersen
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 3.944

5.  Appropriateness of diagnostic strategies for evaluating suspected venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  Thomas Arnason; Philip S Wells; Alan J Forster
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.249

Review 6.  Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis.

Authors:  R E B Andersson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 7.  Point of care testing in the emergency department.

Authors:  Gregory J Fermann; Joe Suyama
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.484

Review 8.  [Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein in bacterial infections. Review of the literature].

Authors:  B S Dahler-Eriksen; I Brandslund; J F Lassen; T Lauritzen
Journal:  Ugeskr Laeger       Date:  1998-08-17

9.  Introduction of a stat laboratory reduces emergency department length of stay.

Authors:  Adam J Singer; Peter Viccellio; Henry C Thode; Jay L Bock; Mark C Henry
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.451

10.  Impact of point-of-care testing in the emergency department evaluation and treatment of patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Bertrand Renaud; Patrick Maison; Alfred Ngako; Patrick Cunin; Aline Santin; Jérôme Hervé; Mirna Salloum; Marie-Jeanne Calmettes; Cyril Boraud; Virginie Lemiale; Jean Claude Grégo; Marie Debacker; François Hémery; Eric Roupie
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.451

View more
  4 in total

1.  Doctors' perceptions of the impact of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department.

Authors:  Lara Nicole Goldstein; Mike Wells; Craig Vincent-Lambert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  The cost of time: A randomised, controlled trial to assess the economic impact of upfront, point-of-care blood tests in the Emergency Centre.

Authors:  Lara Nicole Goldstein; Mike Wells; Craig Vincent-Lambert
Journal:  Afr J Emerg Med       Date:  2019-03-01

3.  Perceptions of point-of-care infectious disease testing among European medical personnel, point-of-care test kit manufacturers, and the general public.

Authors:  Wendy E Kaman; Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou; John P Hays
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 2.711

4.  Blood sample tube transporting system versus point of care technology in an emergency department; effect on time from collection to reporting? A randomised trial.

Authors:  Birgitte Nørgaard; Christian Backer Mogensen
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 2.953

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.