Key result
Near-patient point-of-care testing reduced the time from test order to result review compared to central laboratory testing by a median of 42.1 minutes (95% CI -57.6 to -26.7).
Why the study?
Does point-of-care testing reduce cardiac biomarker assay turnaround time compared to central laboratory testing in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes?
Observational (n=50)
Does point-of-care testing reduce cardiac biomarker assay turnaround time compared to central laboratory testing in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes?
Point-of-care testing for cardiac biomarkers significantly reduces turnaround time compared to central laboratory testing in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes.
May shorten result review time for cardiac biomarkers in suspected ACS; leaves open effects on outcomes or practice change.
Background Point-of-care (POC) testing can reduce cardiac biomarker assay turnaround time for patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). However, equivalent reductions in patient throughput have not been realized. To better understand how POC testing fits into the overall system of measuring and reporting cardiac biomarkers, we conducted a time-and-motion study to identify all steps in the cardiac biomarker assay process for 3 testing methods: central laboratory testing, near-patient POC testing, and bedside POC testing. Methods The assay process for 50 patients with suspected ACS was observed from the decision to order the test to review of results. All actions in the process and the speed of those actions were reported and compared between the 3 testing methods. Results The time from the test order to review of results was shorter for assays processed using near-patient POC testing than assays processed in the central laboratory (median difference, 42.1 minutes; 95% confidence interval, −57.6 to −26.7 minutes). Assays processed using bedside POC testing tended to be faster than those processed near-patient (median difference, 9.3 minutes; 95% confidence interval, −2.8 to 21.4 minutes). Bedside POC testing eliminated the need to transfer blood to a central testing location. We observed 5 medical errors in the central laboratory and near-patient testing scenarios. Conclusions Bedside or near-patient POC testing decreases turnaround time for cardiac biomarker assays in the ED setting and eliminates the need to transfer blood for testing to a central laboratory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hart et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (n=50). Near-patient and bedside point-of-care (POC) testing vs. Central laboratory testing was evaluated on Time from the test order to review of results (Median difference -42.1 minutes, 95% CI -57.6 to -26.7). Near-patient point-of-care testing reduced the time from test order to result review compared to central laboratory testing by a median of 42.1 minutes (95% CI -57.6 to -26.7).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: