Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice

Laurence, Caroline; Gialamas, Angela; Bubner, Tanya; Yelland, Lisa N; Willson, Kristyn; Ryan, Phil; Beilby, Justin

doi:10.3399/bjgp10x483508

Cited by 88 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Four key results are highlighted in this study: patients felt that near-patient testing allowed discussion of the management of their condition with their GP; patients felt they were more motivated to look after their condition; patients preferred near-patient testing using finger prick tests; and they were more satisfied, in particular, those who had anticoagulant monitoring.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Near-patient testing in primary care

Khunti

2010

Br J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Near-patient testing in primary care

Khunti

2010

Br J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is a key step to measure efficacy and effectiveness dimensions of usability [42]. Satisfaction in use, which is the third metric of the usability, was measured in six studies [7,68,74,76,80,82,83]. However, only three of these studies [68,80,83] considered all the necessary factors to enable a satisfactory report about the usability of the device, while all other studies have measured, predominantly, the perceived use, usefulness or satisfaction in use of the device.…”

Section: [Table 2 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participant sample sizes of the reviewed articles varied greatly. Laurence et al 2010 [7] involved 4968 patients, while Seto et al 2006 [83] included only 4 health professionals. The number of participants was less than 100 in three studies, between 100 to less than 1000 in twelve cases, and over 1000 participants in four studies.…”

Section: [Figure 2 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although many studies were carried out by questionnaires, none of the reviewed studies referenced a validated instrument, or built assessment scales on the basis of available questionnaires in literature. Moreover, only in 7 of the 19 cases were the set of questions applied in the study made available [7,64,65,68,74,75,83].…”

Section: [Table 2 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2013 the POC market was estimated to be $54 billion -i.e., 15% of the overall medical device market [5]. Evidence showed that the popularity of POC devices is linked to the fact that clinicians can save time and costs by rapidly, and comfortably testing people [4,6], thus increasing both patient's satisfaction and clinician's decision-making [7]. Moreover, POC tools are generally seen as a way to facilitate the self-management of chronic conditions, to improve the clinician-patient relationships [6], and to help patients comply with therapies [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why you need to include human factors in clinical and empirical studies ofin vitropoint of care devices? Review and future perspectives

Borsci

Buckle

Hanna

2016

Expert Review of Medical Devices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of in-vitro point of care devices -intended as tests performed out of laboratories and near patient -is increasing in clinical environments. International standards indicate that interaction assessment should not end after the product release, yet human factors methods are frequently not included in clinical and empirical studies of these devices. Whilst the literature confirms some advantages of bed-side tests compared to those in laboratories there is a lack of knowledge of the risks associated with their use. This article provides a review of approaches applied by clinical researchers to model the use of in-vitro testing. Results suggest that only a few studies have explored human factor approaches. Furthermore, when researchers investigated peopledevice interaction these were predominantly limited to qualitative and not standardised approaches. The methodological failings and limitations of these studies, identified by us, demonstrate the growing need to integrate human factors methods in the medical field.

show abstract

Engineering of a miniaturized, robotic clinical laboratory

Nourse¹,

Engel²,

Anekal³

et al. 2018

Bioengineering & Transla Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to perform laboratory testing near the patient and with smaller blood volumes would benefit patients and physicians alike. We describe our design of a miniaturized clinical laboratory system with three components: a hardware platform (ie, the miniLab) that performs preanalytical and analytical processing steps using miniaturized sample manipulation and detection modules, an assay‐configurable cartridge that provides consumable materials and assay reagents, and a server that communicates bidirectionally with the miniLab to manage assay‐specific protocols and analyze, store, and report results (i.e., the virtual analyzer). The miniLab can detect analytes in blood using multiple methods, including molecular diagnostics, immunoassays, clinical chemistry, and hematology. Analytical performance results show that our qualitative Zika virus assay has a limit of detection of 55 genomic copies/ml. For our anti‐herpes simplex virus type 2 immunoglobulin G, lipid panel, and lymphocyte subset panel assays, the miniLab has low imprecision, and method comparison results agree well with those from the United States Food and Drug Administration‐cleared devices. With its small footprint and versatility, the miniLab has the potential to provide testing of a range of analytes in decentralized locations.

show abstract

Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice

Cited by 88 publications

References 14 publications

Near-patient testing in primary care

Near-patient testing in primary care

Why you need to include human factors in clinical and empirical studies ofin vitropoint of care devices? Review and future perspectives

Engineering of a miniaturized, robotic clinical laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About