Literature DB >> 7859247

Point-of-care versus central laboratory testing: an economic analysis in an academic medical center.

W W Tsai1, D B Nash, B Seamonds, G J Weir.   

Abstract

A cost-effectiveness study was conducted to determine time and labor costs for point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory testing. A prospective, observational time and motion study was carried out at a teaching hospital located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The cohort consisted of 210 patients presenting to the emergency department who were triaged at the urgent or emergent level during a 4-week period. Patients who had blood drawn for a seven-chemistry profile (Chem-7), which includes analysis of sodium, potassium, chloride, carbon dioxide, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, and creatinine, or for cell blood count (CBC) tests as part of regular care, also had an additional split sample drawn for POC analysis of sodium, potassium, chloride, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, and/or hematocrit. Blood drawn for POC analysis did not require additional needlestick(s), nor did it alter regular care procedures. Physicians and all emergency department staff participating in the care of the patients were blinded to POC test results. Main outcome measures included test turn-around time (TAT), physician determination of impact of rapid TAT and laboratory values on therapeutic approach, and cost per test for POC versus central laboratory testing. POC TAT was a mean of 8 minutes (time from blood drawn to results shown on the POC device display). Central laboratory TAT was a mean of 59 minutes (time from blood drawn to entry of results into mainframe computer). Therapeutic TAT was a mean of 1 hour and 25 minutes (time from blood drawn to analysis in central laboratory, to when the physician viewed test results). After therapeutic course of care was decided for the patient, physicians reported that POC testing, independent of other rate-limiting steps, would have resulted in earlier therapeutic action for 40 of 210 (19.0%) patients. The cost per test for Chem-7 and CBC tests was $11.14 and $9.48, respectively. The cost per test for POC analysis ranged from $14.37 to $16.67, depending on the POC test volume (estimated volume based on 20% to 50% of emergency department patients that had either Chem-7 or CBC test done applied over the useful life of the POC testing equipment) and the personnel (nurse or emergency department technician) who performed the test. With an increasing volume of POC tests performed per unit time, costs for POC testing would be reduced substantially. POC test costs are volume dependent under current reimbursement mechanisms for emergency department patient care services, for example, fee-for-service payment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7859247

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  12 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of near patient test evaluations in primary care.

Authors:  B C Delaney; C J Hyde; R J McManus; S Wilson; D A Fitzmaurice; S Jowett; R Tobias; G H Thorpe; F D Hobbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-25

2.  Laboratory turnaround time.

Authors:  Robert C Hawkins
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2007-11

3.  Point of care testing: randomised controlled trial of clinical outcome.

Authors:  J Kendall; B Reeves; M Clancy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-04-04

4.  Patient Preferences for Point-of-Care Testing: Survey Validation and Results.

Authors:  Craig M Lilly; Emily Ensom; Sean Teebagy; Danielle DiMezza; Denise Dunlap; Nathaniel Hafer; Bryan Buchholz; David McManus
Journal:  Point Care       Date:  2020-12

5.  Improving access to diagnostics: an evaluation of a satellite laboratory service in the emergency department.

Authors:  P Leman; D Guthrie; R Simpson; F Little
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 6.  A systematic review of triage-related interventions to improve patient flow in emergency departments.

Authors:  Sven Oredsson; Håkan Jonsson; Jon Rognes; Lars Lind; Katarina E Göransson; Anna Ehrenberg; Kjell Asplund; Maaret Castrén; Nasim Farrohknia
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Patient throughput times and inflow patterns in Swedish emergency departments. A basis for ANSWER, A National SWedish Emergency Registry.

Authors:  Ulf Ekelund; Lisa Kurland; Fredrik Eklund; Paulus Torkki; Anna Letterstål; Per Lindmarker; Maaret Castrén
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2011-06-13       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Assessment of liver function tests on Piccolo Xpress point of care chemistry analyzer in a pediatric hospital.

Authors:  Neval Akbas; Graciela Gonzalez; Rachel Edwards; Sridevi Devaraj
Journal:  Pract Lab Med       Date:  2015-10-03

Review 9.  A review of microsampling techniques and their social impact.

Authors:  Benson U W Lei; Tarl W Prow
Journal:  Biomed Microdevices       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 2.838

10.  An Evaluation of Laboratory Efficiency in Shanghai Emergency by Turn Around Times Level.

Authors:  Yiming Lu; Waiian Leong; Bohua Wei; Ping Yu; Cuicui Wang; Yilin Ying; Tingsong Wang; Jianjing Tong; Dingliang Zhu; Jing Ye
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2014-08-17       Impact factor: 2.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.