Literature DB >> 31982405

Comparison of the time required for manual (visually read) and semi-automated POCT urinalysis and pregnancy testing with associated electronic medical record (EMR) transcription errors.

Paul E Young1, Gabriel J Diaz1, Rinaben N Kalariya1, Peggy A Mann1, Maegan N Benbrook1, Kurosh R Avandsalehi1, John R Petersen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: POCT urinalysis (UA) and urine pregnancy tests (UPT) are routinely performed in obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) clinics by dipstick and pregnancy test kit methods respectively. In this study, we compared the time, efficiency and accuracy of these tests using manual, visually read methods and a semi-automated analyzer that was not interfaced to the EMR.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 2525 patients at five Ob/Gyn clinics. Urine samples were tested using three different dipsticks for UA (2, 7 and 10 test pads) and the Sure-Vue™ urine pregnancy test kit. The samples were analyzed on the CLINITEK Status® Connect System and results compared for time taken and errors in results' transcription.
RESULTS: Using the CLINITEK Status Connect System, average test time and average total test time for UA dipsticks 7 and 10 test pads was significantly less than the manual, visually read method (0.77 and 0.64 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The average test time for manual, visually read Chem 2 was significantly less than the CLINITEK Status Connect System (0.09 min; p = 0.005), but not the average total test time (0.08 min; p = 0.33). Average test time for a negative UPT using the CLINITEK Status Connect System was significantly greater (0.87 min; p < 0.001). We found a transcription error rate of 0.3-1.7% for UA results and none for UPT. About 8% of UA and 12% of UPT results were not documented in EMR.
CONCLUSION: The CLINITEK Status Connect System was more efficient than the manual, visually read process and if interfaced with the EMR would eliminate errors and non-documentation of results.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Failure to document results; Manual entry error rates; Point of care testing

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31982405     DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.01.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chim Acta        ISSN: 0009-8981            Impact factor:   3.786


  2 in total

1.  Smartphone-Based Colorimetric Analysis of Urine Test Strips for At-Home Prenatal Care.

Authors:  Madeleine Flaucher; Michael Nissen; Katharina M Jaeger; Adriana Titzmann; Constanza Pontones; Hanna Huebner; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Stefan Gradl; Bjoern M Eskofier
Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med       Date:  2022-05-30

2.  Predictive System Implementation to Improve the Accuracy of Urine Self-Diagnosis with Smartphones: Application of a Confusion Matrix-Based Learning Model through RGB Semiquantitative Analysis.

Authors:  Seon-Chil Kim; Young-Sik Cho
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 3.847

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.