Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27756282›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Embedding new technologies in practice - a normalization process theory study of point of care testing.

Caroline H D Jones, Margaret Glogowska, Louise Locock, Daniel S Lasserson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Caroline H D JonesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. Caroline.croxson@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Margaret GlogowskaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Louise LocockNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Daniel S LassersonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany point of care diagnostic technologies are available which produce results within minutes, and offer the opportunity to deliver acute care out of hospital settings. Increasing access to diagnostics at the point of care could increase the volume and scope of acute ambulatory care. Yet these technologies are not routinely used in many settings. We aimed to explore how point of care testing is used in a setting where it has become 'normalized' (embedded in everyday practice), in order to inform future adoption and implementation in other settings. We used normalization process theory to guide our case study approach.

methodsWe used a single case study design, choosing a community based ambulatory care unit where point of care testing is used routinely. A focused ethnographic approach was taken, including non-participant observation of all activities related to point of care testing, and semi-structured interviews, with all clinical staff involved in point of care testing at the unit. Data were analysed thematically, guided by normalization process theory.

resultsFourteen days of observation and six interviews were completed. Staff had a shared understanding of the purpose, value and benefits of point of care testing, believing it to be integral to the running of the unit. They organised themselves as a team to ensure that point of care testing worked effectively; and one key individual led a change in practice to ensure more consistency and trust in procedures. Staff assessed point of care testing as worthwhile for the unit, their patients, and themselves in terms of job satisfaction and knowledge. Potential barriers to adoption of point of care testing were evident (including lack of trust in the accuracy of some results compared to laboratory testing; and lack of ease of use of some aspects of the equipment); but these did not prevent point of care testing from becoming embedded, because the importance and value attributed to it were so strong.

conclusionsThis case study offers insights into successful adoption of new diagnostic technologies into every day practice. Such analyses may be critical to realising their potential to change processes of care.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationPoint-of-Care TestingTranslational Research, BiomedicalAmbulatory Care FacilitiesHumansInterviews as TopicModels, TheoreticalQualitative ResearchAmbulatory careCase studyDiagnostic testsEthnographyNormalization process theoryPoint of care technology

Identifiers

PMID27756282
PMCPMC5070078

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.