Dataset Information

Current and future use of point-of-care tests in primary care: an international survey in Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, the UK and the USA.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Despite the growing number of point-of-care (POC) tests available, little research has assessed primary care clinician need for such tests. We therefore aimed to determine which POC tests they actually use or would like to use (if not currently available in their practice).

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Setting

Primary care in Australia, Belgium (Flanders region only), the Netherlands, the UK and the USA.

Participants

Primary care doctors (general practitioners, family physicians).

Main measures

We asked respondents to (1) identify conditions for which a POC test could help inform diagnosis, (2) from a list of tests provided: evaluate which POC tests they currently use (and how frequently) and (3) determine which tests (from that same list) they would like to use in the future (and how frequently).

Results

2770 primary care clinicians across five countries responded. Respondents in all countries wanted POC tests to help them diagnose acute conditions (infections, acute cardiac disease, pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), and some chronic conditions (diabetes, anaemia). Based on the list of POC tests provided, the most common tests currently used were: urine pregnancy, urine leucocytes or nitrite and blood glucose. The most commonly reported tests respondents expressed a wish to use in the future were: D-dimer, troponin and chlamydia. The UK and the USA reported a higher actual and desired use for POC tests than Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Our limited data suggest (but do not confirm) representativeness.

Conclusions

Primary care clinicians in all five countries expressed a desire for POC tests to help them diagnose a range of acute and chronic conditions. Rates of current reported use and desired future use were generally high for a small selection of POC tests, but varied across countries. Future research is warranted to explore how specific POC tests might improve primary care.

SUBMITTER: Howick J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4127935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims and objectivesTo gain insight into the request, use and associated factors of involuntary treatment in people with dementia (PwD) receiving professional home care in the Netherlands and Belgium.BackgroundMost of the PwD remain living at home as long as possible. Due to complex care needs, this can result in an increased risk for care provided against the wishes of the client and/or to which the client resists, referred to as involuntary treatment.DesignSecondary data analyses of two cross-sectional surveys.MethodsDementia case managers and district nurses filled in a questionnaire for each PwD in their caseload. This study included data of 627 PwD receiving professional home care in the Netherlands and 217 in Belgium. The same methodology (questionnaire and variables) was used in both samples. Descriptive statistics and multi-level logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the data. The study adhered to the STROBE checklist.ResultsMore than half of the PwD (50.7%) living at home received involuntary treatment (Belgium 68.2% and the Netherlands 44.7%). Nonconsensual care (82.7%) was the most common, followed by psychotropic medication (40.7%) and physical restraints (18.5%). Involuntary treatment use was associated with living alone, greater ADL dependency, lower cognitive ability, higher family caregiver burden and receiving home care in Belgium versus the Netherlands. Involuntary treatment was most often requested by family caregivers.ConclusionsInvoluntary treatment is often used in PwD, which is in line with previous findings indicating dementia as a risk factor for involuntary treatment use. More research is needed to gain insight into variations in prevalence across other countries, which factors influence these differences and what countries can learn from each other regarding prevention of involuntary treatment.Relevance to clinical practiceTo provide person-centred care, it is important to study ways to prevent involuntary treatment in PwD and to stimulate dialogue between professional and family caregivers for alternative interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of point of care (POC) tests varies across Europe, but research into what drives this variability is lacking. Focusing on CRP POC tests, we aimed to understand what factors contribute to high versus low adoption of the tests, and also to explore whether they are used in children.MethodsWe used a comparative qualitative case study approach to explore the implementation of CRP POC tests in the Netherlands and England. These countries were selected because although they have similar primary healthcare systems, the availability of CRP POC tests in General Practices is very different, being very high in the former and rare in the latter. The study design and analysis were informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Data were collected through a review of documents and interviews with stakeholders. Documents were identified through a scoping literature review, search of websites, and stakeholder recommendation. Stakeholders were selected purposively initially, and then by snowballing. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsSixty-five documents were reviewed and 21 interviews were conducted. The difference in the availability of CRP POC tests is mainly because of differences at the wider national context level. In the two countries, early adopters of the tests advocated for their implementation through the generation of robust evidence and by engaging with all relevant stakeholders. This led to the inclusion of CRP POC tests in clinical guidelines in both countries. In the Netherlands, this mandated their reimbursement in accordance with Dutch regulations. Moreover, the prevailing better integration of health services enabled operational support from laboratories to GP practices. In England, the funding constraints of the National Health Service and the prioritization of alternative and less expensive antimicrobial stewardship interventions prevented the development of a reimbursement scheme. In addition, the lack of integration between health services limits the operational support to GP practices. In both countries, the availability of CRP POC tests for the management of children is a by-product of the test being available for adults. The tests are less used in children mainly because of concerns regarding their accuracy in this age-group.ConclusionsThe engagement of early adopters combined with a more favourable and receptive macro level environment, including the role of clinical guidelines and their developers in determining which interventions are reimbursed and the operational support from laboratories to GP practices, led to the greater adoption of the tests in the Netherlands. In both countries, CRP POC tests, when available, are less used less in children. Organisations considering introducing POC tests into primary care settings need to consider how their implementation fits into the wider health system context to ensure achievable plans.