POCT Analysts’ Perspective: Practices and Wants for Improvement

Author:

Westgard Sten A1,Goldschmidt Henk M J2,Ehrmeyer Sharon S34

Affiliation:

1. Westgard QC, Inc., Madison, WI

2. Stichting Diagnostisch Centrum Tilburg, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin School, of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI

4. R & S Consultants, Principal, Middleton, WI

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPoint-of-care testing (POCT) continues to expand worldwide. Concerns remain about result quality despite guidelines and standards that specify testing practices. To better understand POCT testing worldwide, we polled analysts to obtain their views on actual practices and needs for improvement.MethodsAn online questionnaire was constructed on SurveyMonkey, a commercially available website for conducting such surveys. POCT analysts were sought worldwide from a pool of healthcare providers subscribed to a westgard.com newsletter or visitors to westgard.com and/or LinkedIn to one of the authors.ResultsSeventy-three percent of testing occurred in hospitals with 64% conducted in specialty settings. Regulatory mandates were followed by 88%. For most, less than 100 tests were performed per day fewer less than 25 devices. Nurses top the list of analysts. All but 5% of analysts received some form of training primarily from manufacturers. Eighty-seven percent verified devices/methods prior to implementation. Five percent do not perform daily QC; all analyzed external QC at least once per month. When QC limits exceed acceptable limits, 92% stop testing. Expired materials were used by 5%. The majority collected data for quality improvements. Eleven percent thought their organization’s POCT is acceptable. The majority of respondents believe improvements need to be made in POCT.ConclusionsAnalysts' POCT practices have and are improving to contribute positively to patients’ healthcare and safety. Analysts do recognize problems and their wants/needs provide important information to improve their practices. Most participants desire more in-house and/or manufacturer training, explicit directions from manufacturers, manufacturer built-in quality and function checks, and oversight.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3