Clinical Chemistry Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 46: 441-442, 2000;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scott, M. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Scott, M. G.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine and Test Utilization
(Clinical Chemistry. 2000;46:441-442.)
© 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Editorial

Faster Is Better—It’s Rarely That Simple!

Mitchell G. Scott1

1 Division of Laboratory Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Box 8118, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110, Fax 314-362-1461, E-mail mscott@labmed.wustl.edu

With the enormous popularity of audioconferences, meetings, and special inserts in nonarchived journals regarding point-of-care testing (POCT), it is clear that laboratorians are struggling with questions about implementing and managing POCT. Yet there is a paucity of serious studies in the peer-reviewed literature that address the benefits of POCT. In this issue, Nichols et al. (1) present a study that examined the impact of POCT implementation on patient waiting time for interventional cardiology procedures. This study provides an example of the proper way to address decisions regarding the implementation of POCT. The authors established an hypothesis about the impact of POCT in their setting, implemented POCT, examined a measurable outcome, and then made adjustments to patient management and workflow when simple implementation of POCT did not substantiate their hypothesis. The bottom line from this study is that despite the initial intuition that faster laboratory values would be better, it took more than just fast laboratory data to obtain the desired benefit. These authors found that simply moving the point of testing from the central laboratory to the clinical service did not improve patient waiting time until significant changes in workflow were made. The predictions of the second phase of their study [when the potential time-savings of POCT vs central laboratory turnaround time (TAT) were determined] suggested that 92% of patients requiring either renal function or coagulation tests could meet their scheduled procedure time with POCT. By contrast, at baseline, only 8% and 29% of patients met their . . . [Full Text of this Article]


References




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 BMJHome page
C. P Price
Regular review: Point of care testing
BMJ, May 26, 2001; 322(7297): 1285 - 1288.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
C. P. Price
Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine: Supporting Decision-Making
Clin. Chem., August 1, 2000; 46(8): 1041 - 1050.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.