Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting

James H. Nichols, Thomas Stephen Kickler, Karen L. Dyer, Sandra K. Humbertson, Peg C. Cooper, William L Maughan, Denise G. Oechsle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) can provide rapid test results, but its impact on patient care is not well documented. We investigated the ability of POCT to decrease inpatient and outpatient waiting times for cardiovascular procedures. Methods: We prospectively studied, over a 7-month period, 216 patients requiring diagnostic laboratory testing for coagulation (prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time) and/or renal function (urea nitrogen, creatinine, sodium, and potassium) before elective invasive cardiac and radiologic procedures. Overall patient management and workflow were examined in the initial phase. In phase 2, we implemented POCT but utilized central laboratory results for patient management. In phase 3, therapeutic decisions were based on POCT results. The final phase, phase 4, sought to optimize workflow around the availability of POCT. Patient wait and timing of phlebotomy, availability of laboratory results, and therapeutic action were monitored. Split sampling allowed comparability of POCT and central laboratory results throughout the study. Results: In phase 1, 44% of central laboratory results were not available before the scheduled time for procedure (n = 135). Mean waiting times (arrival to procedure) were 188 ± 54 min for patients who needed renal testing (phase 2; n = 14) and 171 ± 76 min for those needing coagulation testing (n = 24). For patients needing renal testing, POCT decreased patient wait times (phases 3 and 4 combined, 141 ± 52 min; n = 18; P = 0.02). For patients needing coagulation testing, wait times improved only when systematic changes were made in workflow (phase 4, 109 ± 41 min; n = 12; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Although POCT has the potential to provide beneficial patient outcomes, merely moving testing from a central laboratory to the medical unit does not guarantee improved outcomes. Systematic changes in patient management may be required. (C) 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)543-550
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Chemistry
Volume46
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Cardiology
Interventional Radiology
Radiology
Testing
Workflow
Coagulation
Kidney
Point-of-Care Testing
Phlebotomy
Partial Thromboplastin Time
Prothrombin Time
Availability
Urea
Inpatients
Creatinine
Patient Care
Potassium
Outpatients
Nitrogen
Thromboplastin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Biochemistry

Cite this

Nichols, J. H., Kickler, T. S., Dyer, K. L., Humbertson, S. K., Cooper, P. C., Maughan, W. L., & Oechsle, D. G. (2000). Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting. Clinical Chemistry, 46(4), 543-550.

Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting. / Nichols, James H.; Kickler, Thomas Stephen; Dyer, Karen L.; Humbertson, Sandra K.; Cooper, Peg C.; Maughan, William L; Oechsle, Denise G.

In: Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2000, p. 543-550.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nichols, JH, Kickler, TS, Dyer, KL, Humbertson, SK, Cooper, PC, Maughan, WL & Oechsle, DG 2000, 'Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting', Clinical Chemistry, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 543-550.
Nichols, James H. ; Kickler, Thomas Stephen ; Dyer, Karen L. ; Humbertson, Sandra K. ; Cooper, Peg C. ; Maughan, William L ; Oechsle, Denise G. / Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting. In: Clinical Chemistry. 2000 ; Vol. 46, No. 4. pp. 543-550.
@article{46d14fc1156d4855baab13270a5c07ec,
title = "Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting",
abstract = "Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) can provide rapid test results, but its impact on patient care is not well documented. We investigated the ability of POCT to decrease inpatient and outpatient waiting times for cardiovascular procedures. Methods: We prospectively studied, over a 7-month period, 216 patients requiring diagnostic laboratory testing for coagulation (prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time) and/or renal function (urea nitrogen, creatinine, sodium, and potassium) before elective invasive cardiac and radiologic procedures. Overall patient management and workflow were examined in the initial phase. In phase 2, we implemented POCT but utilized central laboratory results for patient management. In phase 3, therapeutic decisions were based on POCT results. The final phase, phase 4, sought to optimize workflow around the availability of POCT. Patient wait and timing of phlebotomy, availability of laboratory results, and therapeutic action were monitored. Split sampling allowed comparability of POCT and central laboratory results throughout the study. Results: In phase 1, 44{\%} of central laboratory results were not available before the scheduled time for procedure (n = 135). Mean waiting times (arrival to procedure) were 188 ± 54 min for patients who needed renal testing (phase 2; n = 14) and 171 ± 76 min for those needing coagulation testing (n = 24). For patients needing renal testing, POCT decreased patient wait times (phases 3 and 4 combined, 141 ± 52 min; n = 18; P = 0.02). For patients needing coagulation testing, wait times improved only when systematic changes were made in workflow (phase 4, 109 ± 41 min; n = 12; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Although POCT has the potential to provide beneficial patient outcomes, merely moving testing from a central laboratory to the medical unit does not guarantee improved outcomes. Systematic changes in patient management may be required. (C) 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.",
author = "Nichols, {James H.} and Kickler, {Thomas Stephen} and Dyer, {Karen L.} and Humbertson, {Sandra K.} and Cooper, {Peg C.} and Maughan, {William L} and Oechsle, {Denise G.}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "543--550",
journal = "Clinical Chemistry",
issn = "0009-9147",
publisher = "American Association for Clinical Chemistry Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical outcomes of point-of-care testing in the interventional radiology and invasive cardiology setting

AU - Nichols, James H.

AU - Kickler, Thomas Stephen

AU - Dyer, Karen L.

AU - Humbertson, Sandra K.

AU - Cooper, Peg C.

AU - Maughan, William L

AU - Oechsle, Denise G.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) can provide rapid test results, but its impact on patient care is not well documented. We investigated the ability of POCT to decrease inpatient and outpatient waiting times for cardiovascular procedures. Methods: We prospectively studied, over a 7-month period, 216 patients requiring diagnostic laboratory testing for coagulation (prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time) and/or renal function (urea nitrogen, creatinine, sodium, and potassium) before elective invasive cardiac and radiologic procedures. Overall patient management and workflow were examined in the initial phase. In phase 2, we implemented POCT but utilized central laboratory results for patient management. In phase 3, therapeutic decisions were based on POCT results. The final phase, phase 4, sought to optimize workflow around the availability of POCT. Patient wait and timing of phlebotomy, availability of laboratory results, and therapeutic action were monitored. Split sampling allowed comparability of POCT and central laboratory results throughout the study. Results: In phase 1, 44% of central laboratory results were not available before the scheduled time for procedure (n = 135). Mean waiting times (arrival to procedure) were 188 ± 54 min for patients who needed renal testing (phase 2; n = 14) and 171 ± 76 min for those needing coagulation testing (n = 24). For patients needing renal testing, POCT decreased patient wait times (phases 3 and 4 combined, 141 ± 52 min; n = 18; P = 0.02). For patients needing coagulation testing, wait times improved only when systematic changes were made in workflow (phase 4, 109 ± 41 min; n = 12; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Although POCT has the potential to provide beneficial patient outcomes, merely moving testing from a central laboratory to the medical unit does not guarantee improved outcomes. Systematic changes in patient management may be required. (C) 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

AB - Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) can provide rapid test results, but its impact on patient care is not well documented. We investigated the ability of POCT to decrease inpatient and outpatient waiting times for cardiovascular procedures. Methods: We prospectively studied, over a 7-month period, 216 patients requiring diagnostic laboratory testing for coagulation (prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time) and/or renal function (urea nitrogen, creatinine, sodium, and potassium) before elective invasive cardiac and radiologic procedures. Overall patient management and workflow were examined in the initial phase. In phase 2, we implemented POCT but utilized central laboratory results for patient management. In phase 3, therapeutic decisions were based on POCT results. The final phase, phase 4, sought to optimize workflow around the availability of POCT. Patient wait and timing of phlebotomy, availability of laboratory results, and therapeutic action were monitored. Split sampling allowed comparability of POCT and central laboratory results throughout the study. Results: In phase 1, 44% of central laboratory results were not available before the scheduled time for procedure (n = 135). Mean waiting times (arrival to procedure) were 188 ± 54 min for patients who needed renal testing (phase 2; n = 14) and 171 ± 76 min for those needing coagulation testing (n = 24). For patients needing renal testing, POCT decreased patient wait times (phases 3 and 4 combined, 141 ± 52 min; n = 18; P = 0.02). For patients needing coagulation testing, wait times improved only when systematic changes were made in workflow (phase 4, 109 ± 41 min; n = 12; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Although POCT has the potential to provide beneficial patient outcomes, merely moving testing from a central laboratory to the medical unit does not guarantee improved outcomes. Systematic changes in patient management may be required. (C) 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034034647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034034647&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10759479

AN - SCOPUS:0034034647

VL - 46

SP - 543

EP - 550

JO - Clinical Chemistry

JF - Clinical Chemistry

SN - 0009-9147

IS - 4

ER -