Cargando…

Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency Departments (ED) have a high flow of patients and time is often crucial. New technologies for laboratory analysis have been developed, including Point of Care Technologies (POCT), which can reduce the transport time and time of analysis significantly compared with central labor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mogensen, Christian B, Borch, Anders, Brandslund, Ivan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180400/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21906396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-49
_version_ 1782212628177747968
author Mogensen, Christian B
Borch, Anders
Brandslund, Ivan
author_facet Mogensen, Christian B
Borch, Anders
Brandslund, Ivan
author_sort Mogensen, Christian B
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Emergency Departments (ED) have a high flow of patients and time is often crucial. New technologies for laboratory analysis have been developed, including Point of Care Technologies (POCT), which can reduce the transport time and time of analysis significantly compared with central laboratory services. However, the question is if the time to clinical action is also reduced if a decisive laboratory answer is available during the first contact between the patient and doctor. The present study addresses this question: Does a laboratory answer, provided by POCT to the doctor who first attends the patient on admission, change the time to clinical decision in commonly occurring diseases in an ED compared with the traditional service from a central laboratory? METHODS: We performed a randomised clinical trial with parallel design and allocation ratio 1:1. The eligibility Criteria were: All patients referred from General Practitioner or another referring doctor suspected for a deep venous thrombosis (DVT), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute appendicitis (AA) or acute infection (ABI). The outcome measure was the time spend from the blood sample was taken to a clinical decision was made. RESULTS: The study period took place in October--November 2009 and from February to April 2010. 239 patients were eligible for the study. There was no difference between the groups suspected for DVT, ACS and AA, but a significant reduction in time for the ABI group (p:0.009), where the median time to decision was reduced from 7 hours and 33 minutes to 4 hours and 38 minutes when POCT was used. Only in the confirmation of ABI the time to action was significantly shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Fast laboratory answers by POCT in an ED reduce the time to clinical decision significantly for bacterial infections. We suggest further studies which include a sufficient number of patients on deep venous thrombosis, acute appendicitis and acute coronary syndrome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3180400
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31804002011-09-27 Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial Mogensen, Christian B Borch, Anders Brandslund, Ivan Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Emergency Departments (ED) have a high flow of patients and time is often crucial. New technologies for laboratory analysis have been developed, including Point of Care Technologies (POCT), which can reduce the transport time and time of analysis significantly compared with central laboratory services. However, the question is if the time to clinical action is also reduced if a decisive laboratory answer is available during the first contact between the patient and doctor. The present study addresses this question: Does a laboratory answer, provided by POCT to the doctor who first attends the patient on admission, change the time to clinical decision in commonly occurring diseases in an ED compared with the traditional service from a central laboratory? METHODS: We performed a randomised clinical trial with parallel design and allocation ratio 1:1. The eligibility Criteria were: All patients referred from General Practitioner or another referring doctor suspected for a deep venous thrombosis (DVT), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute appendicitis (AA) or acute infection (ABI). The outcome measure was the time spend from the blood sample was taken to a clinical decision was made. RESULTS: The study period took place in October--November 2009 and from February to April 2010. 239 patients were eligible for the study. There was no difference between the groups suspected for DVT, ACS and AA, but a significant reduction in time for the ABI group (p:0.009), where the median time to decision was reduced from 7 hours and 33 minutes to 4 hours and 38 minutes when POCT was used. Only in the confirmation of ABI the time to action was significantly shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Fast laboratory answers by POCT in an ED reduce the time to clinical decision significantly for bacterial infections. We suggest further studies which include a sufficient number of patients on deep venous thrombosis, acute appendicitis and acute coronary syndrome. BioMed Central 2011-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3180400/ /pubmed/21906396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-49 Text en Copyright ©2011 Mogensen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Mogensen, Christian B
Borch, Anders
Brandslund, Ivan
Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial
title Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial
title_full Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial
title_fullStr Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial
title_full_unstemmed Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial
title_short Point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? A randomised trial
title_sort point of care technology or standard laboratory service in an emergency department: is there a difference in time to action? a randomised trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180400/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21906396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-49
work_keys_str_mv AT mogensenchristianb pointofcaretechnologyorstandardlaboratoryserviceinanemergencydepartmentisthereadifferenceintimetoactionarandomisedtrial
AT borchanders pointofcaretechnologyorstandardlaboratoryserviceinanemergencydepartmentisthereadifferenceintimetoactionarandomisedtrial
AT brandslundivan pointofcaretechnologyorstandardlaboratoryserviceinanemergencydepartmentisthereadifferenceintimetoactionarandomisedtrial