Point-of-care Laboratory Research Articles

Implementation of Point-of-Care Rapid Urine Testing for Drugs of Abuse in the Emergency Department of an Academic Medical Center

We evaluated the impact of implementing a point-of-care (POC) rapid urine test panel for drugs of abuse on turnaround time (TAT), emergency department length of stay (LOS), and laboratory test utilization patterns. The mean TAT from sample collection to results reporting decreased by 69.4%, from 108 to 33 minutes, the mean LOS from 11.1 to 8.1 hours (27% P < .0001), and the median LOS from 8.0 to 7.0 hours (13% P = .0017). A method crossover between the POC and central laboratory methods revealed differences in sensitivity and specificity. Overall, there was no clear preference for either method. Differences in performance for individual drug classes were reconciled by providing interpretive comments with POC results. Following implementation, use of urine testing for drugs of abuse increased by 30%, which was offset by fewer requests for extended toxicology testing in the central laboratory and more selective ordering of toxicology tests not on the POC panel (alcohols and analgesics). The implementation of a POC urine test panel for drugs of abuse decreased LOS and TAT and essentially replaced central laboratory testing for drugs of abuse. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between POC and central laboratory results require provision of interpretive comments with results.

Point‐of‐care testing of HbA1c and blood glucose in a remote Aboriginal Australian community

To assess the accuracy of point-of-care (POC) measurements of capillary blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in a remote Aboriginal community with high diabetes prevalence. Cross-sectional study comparing POC capillary glucose and HbA(1c) results with those from corresponding venous samples measured in a reference laboratory. 152 residents aged 11-76 years (representing 76% of population aged over 11 years) had POC glucose measurement in November 2003; 88 with POC glucose level > or = 5.0 mmol/L, or self-reported diabetes, had POC HbA(1c) and laboratory glucose and HbA(1c) measurements. POC fasting capillary levels of glucose (HemoCue Glucose 201 analyser, Medipac Scientific, Sydney) and HbA(1c) (DCA 2000+ analyser, Bayer Australia, Melbourne); correlation and mean difference between capillary POC and venous blood laboratory measurements of glucose and HbA(1c). Mean and median POC capillary glucose levels were 7.99 mmol/L and 6.25 mmol/L, respectively, while mean and median laboratory venous plasma glucose concentrations were 7.63 mmol/L and 5.35 mmol/L. Values for POC capillary HbA(1c) and laboratory HbA(1c) were identical: mean, 7.06%; and median, 6.0%. The correlation coefficient r for POC and laboratory results was 0.98 for glucose and 0.99 for HbA(1c). The mean difference in results was 0.36 mmol/L for glucose (95% CI, 0.13-0.62; limits of agreement [LOA], - 2.07 to 2.79 mmol/L; P = 0.007) and < 0.01% for HbA(1c) (95% CI, - 0.07% to 0.07%; LOA, - 0.66% to 0.66%; P = 0.95), respectively. POC capillary HbA(1c) testing, in particular, offers an accurate, practical, community-friendly way of monitoring diabetes in rural and remote clinical settings. POC capillary glucose results should be confirmed by a laboratory test of venous plasma if the results are likely to significantly influence clinical decisions.

Urine drugs of abuse testing at the point-of-care: clinical interpretation and programmatic considerations with specific reference to the Syva Rapid Test (SRT)

We evaluated a new point-of-care (POC) device for urine drugs of abuse (DOA) screening including appropriate clinical interpretation and potential benefits in a large academic medical center. Two hundred consecutive urine samples were tested using Syva Rapid Test (SRT) and existing laboratory methods (Syva EMIT II). Agreement between methods was acceptable with some considerations. Threshold concentration differences, drug interferences, and cross-reactivity profiles of the class-specific assays resulted in performance differences between the POC and central laboratory methods. Clinical interpretation of POC results requires an understanding of these issues as well as the limitations of urine testing. While urine-based screening is used in workplace testing and in a variety of clinical applications, quantitative blood measurements of some drugs (e.g. ethanol, acetaminophen, salicylate, ±tricyclic antidepressants) will remain important in the emergent setting. Performance of the SRT method takes approximately 10 min. Consequently, the major advantage over laboratory methods is rapid turnaround time. At the Massachusetts General Hospital, the most important application is for samples from the emergency department (about 1700/year). Each institution should assess its own needs and capabilities with regard to POC versus laboratory-based testing for DOA.

A Comparison of Point-of-Care Instruments Designed for Monitoring Oral Anticoagulation with Standard Laboratory Methods

Our study compared point-of-care (POC) device monitoring with traditional clinical laboratory methods device of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy. The POC devices used in the study were Coumatrak, CoaguChek, CoaguChek Plus, Thrombolytic Assessment System (TAS) PT-One, TAS PTNC, TAS PT, Hemachron Jr. Signature, ProTime Microcoagulation System, and Medtronics ACT II. The clinical laboratory method used thromboplastins with different ISI values: Innovin and Thromboplastin C Plus (TPC). All POC INRs showed strong correlation with both laboratory methods, with correlation coefficients of >0.900. All POC methods demonstrated a significant (p <0.05) difference in INR values, except the TAS PTNC and ACT II INRs (p: 0.12 and 0.71 respectively) when compared with Innovin INRs. All POC INRs were significantly different from TPC generated INRs (p <0.05). Comparisons of the POC INRs to the group mean of the POC methods, show higher correlation (R>0.93), but there were still significant (p<0.05) differences noted between the POC group INR mean and CoaguChek Plus, ACT II, TAS PT-One, TAS PTNC, and Hemachron Jr Signature INRs. These data indicate that POC INR biases exist between laboratory methods and POC devices. Until a suitable whole blood INR standardization method is available, we conclude that clinicians using point-of-care anticoagulation monitoring should be aware of differences between POC and parent laboratory values.