BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (POCT), like other laboratory tests, can be affected by errors throughout the total testing process. To evaluate quality error rates, the use of quality indicators (QIs) is recommended; however, little information is available on the quality error rate associated with POCT. The objective of this study was to investigate quality error rates related to POCT and compare them with central laboratory (CL) testing. METHODS: We studied standardized QIs for POCT in comparison to CL testing. We compared error rates related to requests, collection, and handling of samples and results from external quality assessment program (EQAP) and internal quality control (IQC). RESULTS: The highest difference between POCT and CL testing was observed for QI related to patient identification, 45.3% vs. 0.02% (p<0.001). Regarding specimen collection and handling, the QI related to samples without results was also higher in POCT than in CL testing, 15.8% vs. 3.3% (p<0.001). For the QI related to insufficient sample volume, we obtained 2.9% vs. 0.9% (p=0.27). Unlike QIs for the preanalytical phase, QIs for the analytical phase had better results in POCT than CL testing. We obtained 8.3% vs. 16.6% (p=0.13) for QI related to unacceptable results in EQAP and 0.8% vs. 22.5% (p<0.001) for QI related to unacceptable results in IQC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the preanalytical phase remains the main problem in POCT like in CL testing and that monitoring of quality indicators is a very valuable tool in reducing errors in POCT.
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (POCT), like other laboratory tests, can be affected by errors throughout the total testing process. To evaluate quality error rates, the use of quality indicators (QIs) is recommended; however, little information is available on the quality error rate associated with POCT. The objective of this study was to investigate quality error rates related to POCT and compare them with central laboratory (CL) testing. METHODS: We studied standardized QIs for POCT in comparison to CL testing. We compared error rates related to requests, collection, and handling of samples and results from external quality assessment program (EQAP) and internal quality control (IQC). RESULTS: The highest difference between POCT and CL testing was observed for QI related to patient identification, 45.3% vs. 0.02% (p<0.001). Regarding specimen collection and handling, the QI related to samples without results was also higher in POCT than in CL testing, 15.8% vs. 3.3% (p<0.001). For the QI related to insufficient sample volume, we obtained 2.9% vs. 0.9% (p=0.27). Unlike QIs for the preanalytical phase, QIs for the analytical phase had better results in POCT than CL testing. We obtained 8.3% vs. 16.6% (p=0.13) for QI related to unacceptable results in EQAP and 0.8% vs. 22.5% (p<0.001) for QI related to unacceptable results in IQC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the preanalytical phase remains the main problem in POCT like in CL testing and that monitoring of quality indicators is a very valuable tool in reducing errors in POCT.