Dataset Information

Doctors' perceptions of the impact of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Special investigations (e.g. blood tests, electrocardiograms, x-rays) play an integral role in patient management in the emergency department (ED). Having results immediately available prior to assessing a patient may lead to improved efficiency. This could be instituted by utilizing point-of-care (POC) testing with an alternative ED workflow, but the implementation would be dependent on acceptance by the end-users. The aim of this study was to assess doctors' perceptions of POC testing in the ED when the normal treatment pathway was modified to use upfront POC tests performed prior to doctor evaluation in an effort to decrease treatment times. METHODS:A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was performed in the ED where medical patients received either the normal ED workflow pathway or one of the enhanced workflow pathways with POC tests in various combinations prior to doctor evaluation. At the end of the study period, doctors were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to gauge their opinions on the implementation of the early POC testing. RESULTS:Overall, the doctors surveyed were very satisfied with use of upfront POC in the ED. One hundred per cent of the 28 doctors surveyed found it helpful to assess patients who already had test results available and would want it to be permanently available. Normalized satisfaction scores were more favorable for combinations of 3 or more tests (0.7-1.0) as opposed to combinations with 2 or less tests (0.3-0.7). There was a preference for combinations that included comprehensive blood results. CONCLUSION:The implementation of workflow changes to assist doctors in the ED can potentially make them more productive. End-user buy-in is essential in order for the change to be successful. Upfront, protocolised, POC testing is a low-input, high-yield intervention that decreased treatment time and satisfied doctors.

SUBMITTER: Goldstein LN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6292565 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Doctors' perceptions of the impact of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department.

Goldstein Lara Nicole LN Wells Mike M Vincent-Lambert Craig C

PloS one 20181213 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>Special investigations (e.g. blood tests, electrocardiograms, x-rays) play an integral role in patient management in the emergency department (ED). Having results immediately available prior to assessing a patient may lead to improved efficiency. This could be instituted by utilizing point-of-care (POC) testing with an alternative ED workflow, but the implementation would be dependent on acceptance by the end-users. The aim of this study was to assess doctors' perceptions of P ...[more]

PMID: 30543668

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Time-saving is constantly sought after in the Emergency Department (ED), and Point-of-Care (POC) testing has been shown to be an effective time-saving intervention. However, when direct costs are compared, these tests commonly appear to be cost-prohibitive. Economic viability may become apparent when the time-saving is translated into financial benefits from staffing, time- and cost-saving. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic investigations utilised prior to medical contact for ED patients with common medical complaints. METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of upfront, POC testing. Eleven combinations of POC equivalents of commonly-used special investigations (blood tests (i-STAT and complete blood count (CBC)), electrocardiograms (ECGs) and x-rays (LODOX® (Low Dose X-ray)) were evaluated compared to the standard ED pathway with traditional diagnostic tests. The economic viability of each permutation was assessed using the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves. Expenses related to the POC test implementation were compared to the control group while taking staffing costs and time-saving into account. RESULTS:There were 897 medical patients randomised to receive various combinations of POC tests. The most cost-effective combination was the i-STAT+CBC permutation which, based on the time saving, would ultimately save money if implemented. All LODOX®-containing permutations were costlier but still saved time. Non-LODOX® permutations were virtually 100% cost-effective if an additional cost of US$50 per patient was considered acceptable. Higher staffing costs would make using POC testing even more economical. CONCLUSIONS:In certain combinations, upfront, POC testing is more cost-effective than standard diagnostic testing for common ED undifferentiated medical presentations - the most economical POC test combination being the i-STAT + CBC. Upfront POC testing in the ED has the potential to not only save time but also to save money. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03102216.

Project description:Background. Many proponents for healthcare reform suggest increased cost-sharing by patients as a method to reduce overall expenditures. Prior studies on the effects of co-payments for ED visits have generally not been directed toward understanding patient attitudes/behavior at point of care. Objectives. We conducted a survey at point of care to test our hypothesis that a significant number of patients with urgent chief complaints might have avoided the ED if asked to provide a co-payment. Methods. Cross-sectional study design. Stable, oriented, consenting patients at an inner-city, academic ED were consecutively enrolled at hours in which trained research associates were available to assist with data collection. Enrolled patients completed a written survey providing demographic/chief complaint information, and then were asked whether 13 interval amounts of co-payment ranging from 0 to >500 would have impacted their decision to visit the ED. Categorical data are presented as frequency of occurrence and analyzed by chi-square; continuous data presented as means ± standard deviation, analyzed by t-tests. ORs and 95% confidence intervals provided. Primary outcome parameter was the % of patients who would have avoided the ED if asked to pay any co-payment for several urgent chief complaints: chest pain, SOB, and abdominal pain. Results. A total of 581 patients were enrolled; 63.1% female, mean age 42.4 ± 15.1 years, 65% Hispanic, 71.2% income less than 20,000, 28.6% less than high school graduate, 81.3% had primary care physician, 57.6% had 2 or more ED visits/past year. Overall, 30.2% of patients chose 0 as the maximum they would have been willing to pay if it was required to be seen in the ED. 16/58 (28%; 95% CI [18-40%]) of chest pain patients, 9/43 (20.9%; 95% CI [11-35%]) of SOB patients, and 24/127 (26.8%; 95% CI [13-27%]) of abdominal pain patients would have been unwilling to pay a co-pay. Patients with income >20,000 were more willing to pay a co-payment (OR = 2.55; 95% CI [1.59-4.10]). No significant relationship was identified between willingness to pay for: gender, race, education, established primary care provider, and frequency of ED visits. Conclusion. Overall, 30.2% of our patients would not have accepted a co-pay in order to be seen, including more than 20% of the patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain respectively.

Project description:ObjectivesIn many resource-limited health systems, point-of-care tests (POCTs) are the only means for clinical patient sample analyses. However, the speed and simplicity of POCTs also makes their use appealing to clinicians in high-income countries (HICs), despite greater laboratory accessibility. Although also part of the clinical routine in HICs, clinician perceptions of the utility of POCTs are relatively unknown in such settings as compared with others. In a Swedish paediatric emergency department (PED) where POCT use is routine, we aimed to characterise healthcare providers' perspectives on the clinical utility of POCTs and explore their implementation in the local setting; to discuss and compare such perspectives, to those reported in other settings; and finally, to gather requests for ideal novel POCTs.DesignQualitative focus group discussions study. A data-driven content analysis approach was used for analysis.SettingThe PED of a secondary paediatric hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.ParticipantsTwenty-four healthcare providers clinically active at the PED were enrolled in six focus groups.ResultsA range of POCTs was routinely used. The emerging theme Utility of our POCT use is double-edged illustrated the perceived utility of POCTs. While POCT services were considered to have clinical and social value, the local routine for their use was named to distract clinicians from the care for patients. Requests were made for ideal POCTs and their implementation.ConclusionDespite their clinical integration, deficient implementation routines limit the benefits of POCT services to this well-resourced paediatric clinic. As such deficiencies are shared with other settings, it is suggested that some characteristics of POCTs and of their utility are less related to resource level and more to policy deficiency. To address this, we propose the appointment of skilled laboratory personnel as ambassadors to hospital clinics offering POCT services, to ensure higher utility of such services.

Project description:Outcomes data on point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in critically ill patients are lacking. This study examines the association between POCUS in the emergency department and outcomes in critically ill patients.DesignRetrospective cohort study of critically ill emergency department patients in two academic emergency departments. All emergency department patients admitted to the intensive care unit or that die in the emergency department were entered prospectively into a registry.SettingTwo academic emergency departments.PatientsAll adult (> 18 years old) non-trauma patients with hemodynamic instability [shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) > 0.6] between November 1, 2013-October 31, 2016, were included.InterventionsCohorts were assigned as follows: no POCUS (cohort 1), POCUS prior to a key intervention (cohort 2), and POCUS after a key intervention (cohort 3). A key intervention was either a fluid bolus or vasoactive drug initiation.Measurements and main resultsMultivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between POCUS use and the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. We conducted several sensitivity analyses including propensity score matching and inverse-probability-weighted regression-adjustment along with multiple imputation to account for non-random assignment of POCUS as well as bias due to missing data. Of the 7,734 eligible patients, 2,293 patients were excluded. The remaining 5,441 patients were included in the analysis: 4165 in Cohort 1, 614 in Cohort 2, and 662 in Cohort 3. Mortality was 22%, 29%, and 26%, respectively (p < 0.001). POCUS prior to an intervention was associated with an adjusted odds ratio for death of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) compared to no POCUS. The sensitivity analyses showed an absolute increased mortality of +0.05 (95% CI, 0.02-0.09) for cohort 2 compared to 1.ConclusionsPOCUS use prior to interventions appears to be associated with care delays and increased in-hospital mortality compared to critically ill patients with no POCUS. Further explorations of the impact of POCUS in the emergency department appear warranted.

Dataset Information

Doctors' perceptions of the impact of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department.

Publications

Doctors' perceptions of the impact of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure