Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25648985›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Results of a survey among GP practices on how they manage patient safety aspects related to point-of-care testing in every day practice.

Claudette de Vries, Carine Doggen, Ellen Hilbers, Robert Verheij, Maarten IJzerman, Robert Geertsma, Ron Kusters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Patient Safety Domains in Primary Healthcare: A Systematic Review.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Claudette de VriesCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, NL-3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. claudette.de.vries@rivm.nl.
Carine DoggenHealth Technology and Services Research, MIRA institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. c.j.m.doggen@utwente.nl.
Ellen HilbersCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, NL-3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. ellen.hilbers@rivm.nl.
Robert VerheijNetherlands institute for health services research, Utrecht, The Netherlands. r.verheij@nivel.nl.
Maarten IJzermanHealth Technology and Services Research, MIRA institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.j.ijzerman@utwente.nl.
Robert GeertsmaCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, NL-3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. robert.geertsma@rivm.nl.
Ron KustersHealth Technology and Services Research, MIRA institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. g.c.m.kusters@utwente.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care (POC) tests are devices or test strips that can be used near or at the site where care is delivered to patients, enabling a relatively fast diagnosis. Although many general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands are using POC tests in their practice, little is known on how they manage the corresponding patient safety aspects.

methodsTo obtain information on this aspect, an invitation to participate in a web-based questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 750 GP practices. Of this sample 111 GP practices returned a complete questionnaire. Data was analysed by using descriptive statistics.

resultsResults show that there is not always attention for quality control measures such as checking storage conditions, executing calibration, and maintenance. In addition, universal hygienic measures, such as washing hands before taking a blood sample, are not always followed. Refresher courses on the use of POC tests are hardly organized. Only a few of the GPs contact the manufacturer of the device when a device failure occurs. Well-controlled aspects include patient identification and actions taken when ambiguous test results are obtained.

conclusionsWe observed a number of risks for errors with POC tests in GP practices that may be reduced by proper training of personnel, introduction of standard operating procedures and measures for quality control and improved hygiene. To encourage proper use of POCT in general practices, a national POCT guideline, dedicated to primary care and in line with ISO standards, should be introduced.

Indexed as

General PracticePatient SafetyPoint-of-Care SystemsGeneral PractitionersHealth Care SurveysHumansMedical ErrorsQuality Control

Identifiers

PMID25648985
PMCPMC4332919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.