Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany

Frese, Thomas; Steger, Kathleen A.; Deutsch, Tobias; Schmid, Gordian Lukas; Sandholzer, Hagen

doi:10.22605/rrh3552

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between the survey carried out almost 10 years ago and the present study, there were some similarities in terms of knowledge, utilization, and estimated usefulness of available and known POCTs [ 22 ]. In both surveys, the most famous and most frequently used POCTs were Urine testing strips, Blood glucose, Microalbumin, and Troponin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Due to a random selection from the register of members of the KVS, the sample selection for both studies was done with the same method [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The previous survey affirmed a difference in the knowledge, but not regarding the utilization of POCTs between rural GPs and their urban colleagues. As a result, we did not newly investigate this [ 22 ]. A study from the UK did not reveal any correlation concerning the demographic data neither [ 22 , 42 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, we wanted to find out differences in the use of POCTs (e.g. age, gender, regional structures (city/rural) or activity as GPs who teach undergraduates) [ 22 ]. The surveyed general practitioners only judged the frequently employed POCTs as relevant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is independent of the age and gender of the GPs, whether they are teaching undergraduates or not, and the location of the practice (metropolitan or small-town rural). Although rural arean physicians appear to be better informed about POC testing (for HFABP, CRP, PSA, Heliocobacter pylori, and Hydrogen breath test), there are no differences in frequency of use or importance [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Utilization of point-of-care tests among general practitioners, a cross-sectional study

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Point-of-care testing (POCT) has numerous potential benefits to improve health care service, especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to identify which POC-tests (POCTs) of laboratory parameters are known, employed, and rated as useful by general practitioners (GPs). Methods A questionnaire with 27 POCTs was posted to a random selection of GPs (n = 451) in Saxony, Germany. Results A total of 208 GPs replied (response rate 46.1%). Out of 27 POCTs, each GP knew an average of 20.3 as laboratory parameters and 9.2 as POCTs. Urine test strips (99.0%), blood glucose test (98.1%), and Troponin I/T (86.4%) were the best-known, followed by INR/Quick (82.5%), Microalbumin (79.1%), and D-dimer (78.6%) POCTs. Yet, solely 0 to 13 POC tests were actually used (mean value 4.6). Urine test strips were employed most frequently (97.6%), followed by blood glucose test (94.7%), Troponin I/T (57.8%), Microalbumin (57.3%), and INR/Quick POCTs (41.7%). Heart fatty binding protein (H-FABP), Syphilis, Coeliac disease, and Malaria appeared as the least frequently used POCTs. The majority of the GPs declared 14 of the 27 POCTs to be useful. Discussion/conclusion The most recurrently employed POCTs are those for diagnosing or monitoring diabetes mellitus, ensued by POCTs addressing acute cardiovascular diseases (Troponin I/T, D-dimer) or monitoring the therapy of infectious diseases or the anticoagulant therapy. POCTs most often rated as useful by GPs are also widely known and frequently used. Nonetheless, the majority of GPs rate only a very limited number of POCTs as useful. Frequent concerns might be low economic benefit, over-reliance, and test accuracy coming along with the complex implementation of the tests requiring technical skills, accurate storage, and the correct interpretation of test results. Trial registration In accordance with the (Model) Professional Code for Physicians in Germany, neither human body materials nor data that can be assigned to a specific human being are used in our study. A declaration of no objection from the Ethics Committee of the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Medical Faculty) confirms no professional or ethical concerns due to completely anonymized data collection and analysis. Our study was therefore not registered in a corresponding registry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Due to a random selection from the register of members of the KVS, the sample selection for both studies was done with the same method [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Utilization of point-of-care tests among general practitioners, a cross-sectional study

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ultrasonography in assessing suspected bone fractures: a cross-sectional survey amongst German general practitioners

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Over the last two decades, ultrasonography (US) has been shown to be an accurate tool for the diagnosis of suspected bone fractures; however, the integration of this application of US into routine care and outpatient settings needs to be explored. In this study, we surveyed German general practitioners (GPs) to assess their knowledge, attitudes, and utilization of US for the diagnosis of suspected fractures. Methods: Notification of the study, a self-designed questionnaire, and a reminder were mailed to 600 randomly selected GPs in Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. Results: The response rate was 47.7% (n = 286), and respondents did not differ from the population of all GPs in respect to sex and practice type. Among GPs surveyed, 48.6% used an US device in their practice. On average, GPs diagnosed six patients with suspected fractures per month, yet only 39.3% knew about the possibility of ultrasonographic fracture diagnosis, and only 4.3% of GPs using US applied it for this purpose. Among participants, 71.9% believed that US is inferior to conventional X-rays for the diagnosis of bony injuries. Users of US were better informed of and more commonly used US for fracture diagnosis compared to non-users. Conclusion: The need to rule out possible fractures frequently arises in general practice, and US devices are broadly available. Further efforts are needed to improve the knowledge and attitudes of GPs regarding the accuracy of US for fracture diagnosis. Multicenter controlled trials could explore the safety, usefulness, and effectiveness of this still seldom used diagnostic approach for suspected fractures.

show abstract

Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Utilization of point-of-care tests among general practitioners, a cross-sectional study

Utilization of point-of-care tests among general practitioners, a cross-sectional study

Ultrasonography in assessing suspected bone fractures: a cross-sectional survey amongst German general practitioners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About