These reflect the wide scope in which POCT is deployed, including in particular emergency departments and acute ambulatory units, but also pre-operative assessment units, departments providing medical imaging services, and community hospitals. More than 40 settings were classified by location and, where applicable, department, ward or care unit.
#Istat venous code
The quantitative component uses routinely collected error code information reported by POCT blood testing platforms in use at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (OUHFT) between January 2016 and December 2018, namely the Abbott i-STAT, Abbott i-STAT Alinity, and Afinion AS100 and Afinion 2 analyzers. The aims of this mixed-methods study, set in a large acute hospital trust in the UK, are to quantify error rates by error category, to identify patterns of errors by hospital department and over time, and to explore the processes involved in POCT and possible reasons underlying pre-analytical error using qualitative, ethnographic research. There is therefore limited published evidence for the frequency of, and reasons for, pre-analytical errors when using POCT devices in ambulatory settings. However, these rates were based on errors logged individually by the operators rather than automatically recorded. Ī study in secondary care in the UK estimated an overall error rate from a variety of POCT devices as less than 1% of total tests performed, with 32% of all errors occurring in the pre-analytical phase and the majority of these having only minor impact on patient outcomes, such as delayed diagnosis. There is a concern that the risk of error using POCT in clinical settings may be higher than in the laboratory, although even in the laboratory environment, rates of pre-analytical error may be non-negligible. This makes errors that may be attributable to the user in the pre-analytical phase of testing, such as incorrectly filling or mishandling a cartridge, especially relevant. In practice, POCT may be performed by multiple operators with varying levels of experience. Although analytical performance of POCT platforms is available in manufacturers’ technical documentation, the frequency and nature of errors that may arise when using these platforms in the clinical environment is less commonly reported, and definitions of pre-analytical error are wide-ranging and inconsistently applied. Point of care testing (POCT) has gradually grown in popularity, both in primary care, where it is argued to be a key element of antimicrobial stewardship, and in secondary and tertiary care as new technologies emerge. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS One policies on sharing data and materials. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Ĭompeting interests: The project was supported by a grant from a commercial source (Becton, Dickinson and Company). The project was also supported by a grant from Becton, Dickinson and Company.
The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.ĭata Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.įunding: This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Community Healthcare MedTech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. Received: OctoAccepted: JanuPublished: February 3, 2020Ĭopyright: © 2020 Fanshawe et al. PLoS ONE 15(2):Įditor: Pal Bela Szecsi, Copenhagen University Hospital Holbæk, DENMARK (2020) Pre-analytical error for three point of care venous blood testing platforms in acute ambulatory settings: A mixed methods service evaluation. Citation: Fanshawe TR, Glogowska M, Edwards G, Turner PJ, Smith I, Steele R, et al.
0 kommentar(er)
