Search

Background: In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, point-of-care testing (POCT) is more widely implemented in general practice compared to countries such as England and Australia. To comprehend what is necessary to realize the benefits of POCT, regarding its integration in primary care, it would be beneficial to have an overview of the structure of healthcare operations and the transactions between stakeholders (also referred to as value networks). The aim of this paper is to identify the current value networks in place applying to POCT implementation at general practices in England, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands and to compare these networks in terms of seven previously published factors that support the successful implementation, sustainability and scale-up of innovations., Methods: The value networks were described based on formal guidelines and standards published by the respective governments, organizational bodies and affiliates. The value network of each country was validated by at least two relevant stakeholders from the respective country., Results: The analysis revealed that the biggest challenge for countries with low POCT uptake was the lack of effective communication between the several organizations involved with POCT as well as the high workload for general practitioners (GPs) aiming to implement POCT. It is observed that countries with a single national authority responsible for POCT have a better uptake as they can govern the task of POCT roll-out and management and reduce the workload for GPs by assisting with set-up, quality control, training and support., Conclusion: Setting up a single national authority may be an effective step towards realizing the full benefits of POCT. Although it is possible for day-to-day operations to fall under the responsibility of the GP, this is only feasible if support and guidance are readily available to ensure that the workload associated with POCT is limited and as low as possible., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Objectives: There are numerous point-of-care tests (POCTs) available on the market, but many of these are not used. This study reviewed literature pertaining to the evaluation/usage of POCTs in primary care, to investigate whether outcomes being reported reflect aspects previously demonstrated to be important for general practitioners (GPs) in the decision to implement a POCT in practice., Methods: Scopus and Medline were searched to identify studies that evaluated a POCT in primary care. We identified abstracts and full-texts consisting of applied studies (eg trials, simulations, observational studies) and qualitative studies (eg interviews, surveys). Data were extracted from the included studies, such as the type of study, the extent to which manufacturers were involved in the study, and the biomarker/assay measured by the test(s). Studies were evaluated to summarise the extent to which they reported on, amongst others, clinical utility, user-friendliness, turnaround-time and technical performance (aspects previously identified as important)., Results: The initial search resulted in 1398 publications, of which 125 met the inclusion criteria. From these studies, 83 POCTs across several disease areas (including cardiovascular disease, venous thromboembolism and respiratory-tract-infections) were identified. There was an inconsistency between what is reported in the studies and what GPs consider important. GPs perceive clinical utility as the most important aspect, yet this was rarely included explicitly in test evaluations in the literature, with only 8% of evaluations incorporating it in their analysis/discussion., Conclusions: This review showed that, despite the growing market and development of new POCTs, studies evaluating such tests fail to report on aspects that GPs find important. To ensure that an evaluation of a POCT is useful to primary care clinicians, future evaluations should not only focus on the technical performance aspects of a test, but also report on the aspects relating to the clinical utility and risks., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim To investigate general practitioners' (GPs') desire and perceived added value of point-of-care (POC) troponin, its effect on referral decisions, and test requirements., Background: Excluding acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in primary care remains a diagnostic challenges for GPs. Consequently, referral rates of chest pain patients are high, while the incidence of a cardiovascular problem is only 8-15%. Previous studies have shown that GPs are interested in a POC troponin test. This test could enhance rapid exclusion of ACS, thereby preventing unnecessary patient distress, without compromising safety and while reducing costs. However, using this test is not recommended in current guidelines due to uncertainty in the test's potential added value, and the lower sensitivity early after symptom onset as compared with troponin tests in a regular laboratory., Methods: An online survey containing 34 questions was distributed among 837 Dutch GPs in June 2015. Findings A total of 126 GPs (15.1%) completed at least 75% of the questions. 67.1% of GPs believe that POC troponin tests have moderate to very high added value. Although the availability of a POC test is expected to increase the frequency at which troponin tests are used, it likely decreases (immediate) referral rates. Of the responding GPs, 78.3% only accept 10 min as the maximum test duration, 78.1% think reimbursement of the POC device is required for implementation, and 68.9% consider it necessary that it can be performed with a finger prick blood sample. In conclusion, according to GPs, the POC troponin test can be of added value to exclude ACS early on. Actual test implementation will depend on test characteristics, including test duration, type of blood sample required, and reimbursement of the analyzer.

Iron deficiency anemia is a significant global health concern, diagnosed by measuring hemoglobin concentrations in combination with plasma ferritin concentration. This study investigated the variability in ferritin reference intervals among laboratories in the Netherlands and examined how this affects the identification of iron-related disorders. Ferritin reference intervals from 52 Dutch ISO15189-certified medical laboratories were collected. Ferritin, hemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume data of non-anemic apparently healthy primary care patients, measured by four laboratory platforms (Beckman, Abbott, Siemens, and Roche), were collected (n=397,548). Median ferritin levels were determined per platform, stratified by sex and age. The proportion of ferritin measurements outside of the reference interval was calculated using the reference intervals from the 52 laboratories (using a total of n=1,093,442 ferritin measurements). Lastly, ferritin data from 3,699 patients as captured in general practitioner (GP) data from the PHARMO Data Network were used to assess the variation of abnormal ferritin measurements per GP. Median plasma ferritin concentrations were approximately four times higher in men and twice as high in postmenopausal women compared to premenopausal women. Moreover, there are substantial differences in the median plasma ferritin concentration between the four platforms. However, even among laboratories using the same platform, ferritin reference intervals differ widely. This leads to significant differences in the percentages of measurements classified as abnormal, with the percentage of ferritin measurements below the reference limit in premenopausal women ranging from 11 to 53 %, in postmenopausal women from 3 to 37 %, and in men from 2 to 19 %. The percentage of ferritin measurements above the reference limit in premenopausal women ranged from 0.2 to 11 %, in postmenopausal women from 3 to 36 % and in men from 7 to 32 %. The lack of harmonization in ferritin measurement and the disagreement in plasma ferritin reference intervals significantly impact the interpretation of the iron status of patients and thereby the number of iron disorder diagnoses made. Standardization or harmonization of the ferritin assays and establishing uniform reference intervals and medical decision limits are essential to reduce the substantial variability in clinical interpretations of ferritin results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More information is often thought to improve medical decision-making, which may lead to test overuse. This study assesses which out of 15 laboratory tests contribute to diagnosing the underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners (GPs) and determines a potentially more efficient subset of tests for setting the correct diagnosis.Methods: Logistic regression was performed to determine the impact of individual tests on the (correct) diagnosis. The statistically optimal test subset for diagnosing a (correct) underlying cause of anaemia by GPs was determined using data from a previous survey including cases of real-world anaemia patients.Results: Only 9 (60%) of the laboratory tests, and patient age, contributed significantly to the GPs' ability to diagnose an underlying cause of anaemia (CRP, ESR, ferritin, folic acid, haemoglobin, leukocytes, eGFR/MDRD, reticulocytes and serum iron). Diagnosing the correct underlying cause may require just five (33%) tests (CRP, ferritin, folic acid, MCV and transferrin), and patient age.Conclusions: In diagnosing the underlying cause of anaemia a subset of five tests has most added value. The real-world impact of using only this subset should be further investigated. As illustrated in this case study, a statistical approach to assessing the added value of tests may reduce test overuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Establishing the underlying cause of anaemia in general practice is a diagnostic challenge. Currently, general practitioners individually determine which laboratory tests to request (routine work-up) in order to diagnose the underlying cause. However, an extensive work-up (consisting of 14 tests) increases the proportion of patients correctly diagnosed. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of this extensive work-up. Methods A decision-analytic model was developed, incorporating all societal costs from the moment a patient presents to a general practitioner with symptoms suggestive of anaemia (aged ≥ 50 years), until the patient was (correctly) diagnosed and treated in primary care, or referred to (and diagnosed in) secondary care. Model inputs were derived from an online survey among general practitioners, expert estimates and published data. The primary outcome measure was expressed as incremental cost per additional patient diagnosed with the correct underlying cause of anaemia in either work-up. Results The probability of general practitioners diagnosing the correct underlying cause increased from 49.6% (95% CI: 44.8% to 54.5%) in the routine work-up to 56.0% (95% CI: 51.2% to 60.8%) in the extensive work-up (i.e. +6.4% [95% CI: -0.6% to 13.1%]). Costs are expected to increase slightly from €842/patient (95% CI: €704 to €994) to €845/patient (95% CI: €711 to €994), i.e. +€3/patient (95% CI: €-35 to €40) in the extensive work-up, indicating incremental costs of €43 per additional patient correctly diagnosed. Conclusions The extensive laboratory work-up is more effective for diagnosing the underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners, at a minimal increase in costs. As accompanying benefits in terms of quality of life and reduced productivity losses could not be captured in this analysis, the extensive work-up is likely cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Point-of-care (POC) tests are devices or test strips that can be used near or at the site where care is delivered to patients, enabling a relatively fast diagnosis. Although many general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands are using POC tests in their practice, little is known on how they manage the corresponding patient safety aspects. Methods: To obtain information on this aspect, an invitation to participate in a web-based questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 750 GP practices. Of this sample 111 GP practices returned a complete questionnaire. Data was analysed by using descriptive statistics. Results: Results show that there is not always attention for quality control measures such as checking storage conditions, executing calibration, and maintenance. In addition, universal hygienic measures, such as washing hands before taking a blood sample, are not always followed. Refresher courses on the use of POC tests are hardly organized. Only a few of the GPs contact the manufacturer of the device when a device failure occurs. Well-controlled aspects include patient identification and actions taken when ambiguous test results are obtained. Conclusions: We observed a number of risks for errors with POC tests in GP practices that may be reduced by proper training of personnel, introduction of standard operating procedures and measures for quality control and improved hygiene. To encourage proper use of POCT in general practices, a national POCT guideline, dedicated to primary care and in line with ISO standards, should be introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The increasing number of available point-of-care (POC) tests challenges clinicians regarding decisions on which tests to use, how to efficiently use them, and how to interpret the results. Although POC tests may offer benefits in terms of low turn-around-time, improved patient's satisfaction, and health outcomes, only few are actually used in clinical practice. Therefore, this study aims to identify which criteria are, in general, important in the decision to implement a POC test, and to determine their weight. Two POC tests available for use in Dutch general practices (i.e. the C-reactive protein (CRP) test and the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test) serve as case studies. The information obtained from this study can be used to guide POC test development and their introduction in clinical practice. Methods: Relevant criteria were identified based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with twelve experts in the field. Subsequently, the criteria were clustered in four groups (i.e. user, organization, clinical value, and socio-political context) and the relative importance of each criterion was determined by calculating geometric means as implemented in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Of these twelve experts, ten participated in a facilitated group session, in which their priorities regarding both POC tests (compared to central laboratory testing) were elicited. Results: Of 20 criteria in four clusters, the test's clinical utility, its technical performance, and risks (associated with the treatment decision based on the test result) were considered most important for using a POC test, with relative weights of 22.2, 12.6 and 8.5%, respectively. Overall, the experts preferred the POC CRP test over its laboratory equivalent, whereas they did not prefer the POC HbA1c test. This difference was mainly explained by their strong preference for the POC CRP test with regard to the subcriterion 'clinical utility'. Conclusions: The list of identified criteria, and the insights in their relative impact on successful implementation of POC tests, may facilitate implementation and use of existing POC tests in clinical practice. In addition, having experts score new POC tests on these criteria, provides developers with specific recommendations on how to increase the probability of successful implementation and use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]