Dataset Information

Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community.

Methods

In a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing.

Results

Of 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7?years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant (p?=?0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)(p?=?0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p?=?0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® (p?=?0.063).

Conclusions

CP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths.

SUBMITTER: Blanchard IE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6498549 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices.

Blanchard Ian E IE Kozicky Ryan R Dalgarno Dana D Simms Justin J Goulder Stacy S Williamson Tyler S TS Biesbroek Susan S Page Lenore L Leaman Karen K Snozyk Suzanne S Redman Lyle L Spackman Keith K Doig Christopher J CJ Lang Eddy S ES Lazarenko Gerald G

BMC emergency medicine 20190502 1

<h4>Background</h4>Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community.<h4>Methods</h4>In a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validati ...[more]

PMID: 31046680

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices.ObjectiveA systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises.ResultsA total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review.ConclusionMost of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

Project description:Mobile applications or 'apps' intended to help people manage their health and chronic conditions are widespread and gaining in popularity. However, little is known about their acceptability and usability for low-income, racially/ethnically diverse populations who experience a disproportionate burden of chronic disease and its complications.The objective of this study was to investigate the usability of existing mobile health applications ("apps") for diabetes, depression, and caregiving, in order to facilitate development and tailoring of patient-facing apps for diverse populations.Usability testing, a mixed-methods approach that includes interviewing and direct observation of participant technology use, was conducted with participants (n?=?9 caregivers; n?=?10 patients with depression; and n?=?10 patients with diabetes) on a total of 11 of the most popular health apps (four diabetes apps, four depression apps, and three caregiver apps) on both iPad and Android tablets.The participants were diverse: 15 (58 %) African Americans, seven (27 %) Whites, two (8 %) Asians, two (8 %) Latinos with either diabetes, depression, or who were caregivers.Participants were given condition-specific tasks, such as entering a blood glucose value into a diabetes app. Participant interviews were video recorded and were coded using standard methods to evaluate attempts and completions of tasks. We performed inductive coding of participant comments to identify emergent themes.Participants completed 79 of 185 (43 %) tasks across 11 apps without assistance. Three themes emerged from participant comments: lack of confidence with technology, frustration with design features and navigation, and interest in having technology to support their self-management.App developers should employ participatory design strategies in order to have an impact on chronic conditions such as diabetes and depression that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. While patients express interest in using technologies for self-management, current tools are not consistently usable for diverse patients.

Project description:Blood collection using dried blood spots (DBS) provides an easier alternative to venipuncture for sample collection, transport, and storage but requires additional processing that can cause variability in results. Whole-blood samples spotted on four DBS devices and respective paired serum samples were tested for antimeasles and antirubella IgG antibody concentrations by enzyme immunoassay. Elution protocols for DBS devices were optimized for comparability relative to serum samples using 12 adult volunteers. Stability of DBS collected on HemaSpot HF was assessed under various temperature conditions (+4, 22 to 25, and 45°C) at six time points (0, 7, 15, 30, 60, and 90 days) in a controlled laboratory setting using six adult volunteers. Devices were shipped and stored for 30 days at four settings with variable temperature and humidity conditions to assess the impact on antibody concentrations. Three DBS devices demonstrated comparable antibody concentrations with paired sera following optimization. Antibodies recovered from DBS were stable for at least 90 days at 4°C and for 30 days at ambient temperature (22 to 25°C) using the HemaSpot HF device. A drastic decline in antibody concentrations was observed at 45°C, resulting in quantitative and qualitative discrepancies by day 7. HemaSpot HF devices shipped to field sites and stored at ambient temperature and humidity resulted in quantitative, but not qualitative, variability. Measurement of antimeasles and antirubella IgG antibodies with DBS devices is an accurate alternative to testing serum, provided elution protocols are optimized. Stability of HemaSpot HF devices at ambient temperature enables broader use in surveys when serum processing and cold storage are not feasible. IMPORTANCE Dried blood spot (DBS) collection offers various advantages over conventional methods of blood collection, especially when collecting and transporting samples for a serosurvey. Yet use of DBS requires additional processing steps in the laboratory that can add to variability in results. We optimized a protocol to elute IgG antibodies against measles and rubella viruses in four DBS devices, demonstrating high concordance with paired venous sera for most devices. Extensive stability studies with various temperature and storage conditions in the laboratory and in the field were conducted using HemaSpot HF DBS devices prior to its use in one of the largest community-based measles and rubella serological surveys in the world.

Dataset Information

Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets