ArticleBMJ quality improvement reports2015
Introduction of point of care analysis for prescribing warfarin at a Swedish primary care centre.
Article in BMJ quality improvement reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A project to improve the management of patients on warfarin in a primary care setting through the introduction of a POC analysis.BMJ quality improvement reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Boo Health Centre in Nacka, Sweden, manages approximately 240 patients on warfarin treatment. A risk analysis showed that testing and prescribing of warfarin involved 28 different steps and nine parties, leading to a high risk of errors. The aim of the study was to shorten and simplify the process flow for the testing and prescription of warfarin by introducing point of care analysis (POC). The aim was also to evaluate changes in time expenditure and cost related to the new processes well as the quality in form of time in therapeutic range (TTR) and number of adverse events. A study with POC was performed during six months in 2014. Time expenditure, cost, TTR, and adverse events related to warfarin treatment were recorded. An evaluation was also conducted in the form of surveys to patients and staff regarding satisfaction with the new process. The process was shortened from 28 steps and nine parties involved to nine steps and four parties involved. The patient got their test result and met with the prescribing doctor, all within the same visit, meaning that the feedback time for patients was shortened from one to three days by mail to less than 10 minutes at the medical centre. TTR did not change and the incidence of adverse events was not affected. The surveys showed that the overwhelming proportion of patients, doctors, assistant nurses, and laboratory staff were pleased with the changes and the patients would recommend others to monitor their treatment at Boo Health Centre. There was a reduction in time expenditure for the staff. The costs decreased from approximately 8 000 €/month to about 7 000 €/month. The introduction of the POC method enabled a shorter process flow with reduced time expenditure for both patients and staff and reduced costs. TTR did not change. Patients and staff were satisfied with the changes and the patients could take a more active role in their treatment. It is possible that POC analysis may have implications on improved compliance to warfarin treatment, if so, it will increase patient safety.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.