OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the current use, future needs, and attitudes towards point-of-care testing among Dutch family practitioners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. METHOD: We performed a survey among 2129 Dutch family practitioners. We asked respondents to report on the current and desired use of point-of-care tests, frequency of use, their opinions on aspects of point-of-care tests and consequences of point-of-care tests on their practice, acceptable waiting times for test results to come in, the desire for point-of-care tests at out-of-hours services, and conditions for which a point-of-care test could assist in diagnosis. RESULTS: 639 family practitioners completed the survey (response rate: 30%). The most common point-of-care tests currently used by family physicians were: blood glucose (96%), urine leucocytes or nitrite (96%), urine pregnancy (94%), haemoglobin (58%), and CRP (48%). The most commonly desired point-of-care tests were: D-dimer (70%), troponin (65%), BNP (62%), chlamydia (60%), and INR (54%). Family practitioners expected point-of-care tests to have a positive effect on patient satisfaction (93%), diagnostic certainty (89%), antibiotics use (84%), and substitution to primary care (78%). They considered the proven effect on clinical management (46%) and the tests' reliability (35%) to be important aspects of point-of-care tests. Respondents wanted point-of-care tests to help them diagnose acute conditions, such as acute thromboembolic disorders (D-dimers), cardiac disorders (troponin, BNP), and infections (CRP, chlamydia). CONCLUSION: The current use of point-of-care testing in family practice is restricted to a limited number of tests. In the future, Dutch family practitioners wish to use more point-of-care tests, especially in acute conditions in which a diagnostic decision needs to be made immediately.
OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the current use, future needs, and attitudes towards point-of-care testing among Dutch family practitioners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. METHOD: We performed a survey among 2129 Dutch family practitioners. We asked respondents to report on the current and desired use of point-of-care tests, frequency of use, their opinions on aspects of point-of-care tests and consequences of point-of-care tests on their practice, acceptable waiting times for test results to come in, the desire for point-of-care tests at out-of-hours services, and conditions for which a point-of-care test could assist in diagnosis. RESULTS: 639 family practitioners completed the survey (response rate: 30%). The most common point-of-care tests currently used by family physicians were: blood glucose (96%), urine leucocytes or nitrite (96%), urine pregnancy (94%), haemoglobin (58%), and CRP (48%). The most commonly desired point-of-care tests were: D-dimer (70%), troponin (65%), BNP (62%), chlamydia (60%), and INR (54%). Family practitioners expected point-of-care tests to have a positive effect on patient satisfaction (93%), diagnostic certainty (89%), antibiotics use (84%), and substitution to primary care (78%). They considered the proven effect on clinical management (46%) and the tests' reliability (35%) to be important aspects of point-of-care tests. Respondents wanted point-of-care tests to help them diagnose acute conditions, such as acute thromboembolic disorders (D-dimers), cardiac disorders (troponin, BNP), and infections (CRP, chlamydia). CONCLUSION: The current use of point-of-care testing in family practice is restricted to a limited number of tests. In the future, Dutch family practitioners wish to use more point-of-care tests, especially in acute conditions in which a diagnostic decision needs to be made immediately.
Authors: Caroline Morbach; Thomas Buck; Christian Rost; Sebastian Peter; Stephan Günther; Stefan Störk; Christiane Prettin; Raimund Erbel; Georg Ertl; Christiane E Angermann Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Neta Bachar; Dana Benbassat; David Brailovsky; Yochay Eshel; Dan Glück; Daniel Levner; Sarah Levy; Sharon Pecker; Evgeny Yurkovsky; Amir Zait; Cordelia Sever; Alexander Kratz; Carlo Brugnara Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.265
Authors: Jonathan Cooke; Christopher Butler; Rogier Hopstaken; Matthew Scott Dryden; Cliodna McNulty; Simon Hurding; Michael Moore; David Martin Livermore Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2015-05-06
Authors: Jeanne Heil; Jochen W L Cals; Henriëtte L G Ter Waarbeek; Christian J P A Hoebe; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: Eur J Gen Pract Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 1.904
Authors: Z Yonel; K Kuningas; P Sharma; M Dutton; Z Jalal; P Cockwell; J Webber; P Narendran; T Dietrich; I L C Chapple Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 3.298
Authors: Clare Goyder; Pui San Tan; Jan Verbakel; Thanusha Ananthakumar; Joseph J Lee; Gail Hayward; Philip J Turner; Ann Van Den Bruel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 2.692