Trial reportPloS one2018
Doctors' perceptions of the impact of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2019Trial
- National survey on availability, use and clinical impact of point-of-care blood analysis systems in Swedish emergency departments.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Benefits of emergency department routine blood test performance on patients whose allocated triage category is not time critical: a retrospective study.BMC health services research · 2024Observational
- Point-of-care COVID-19 testing in the emergency department: current status and future prospects.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2021Review
- Correction: Doctors' perceptions of the impact of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department.PloS one · 2019Article
- Physician Communication Behaviors on Patient Satisfaction in Primary Care Medical Settings in Bangladesh.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSpecial investigations (e.g. blood tests, electrocardiograms, x-rays) play an integral role in patient management in the emergency department (ED). Having results immediately available prior to assessing a patient may lead to improved efficiency. This could be instituted by utilizing point-of-care (POC) testing with an alternative ED workflow, but the implementation would be dependent on acceptance by the end-users. The aim of this study was to assess doctors' perceptions of POC testing in the ED when the normal treatment pathway was modified to use upfront POC tests performed prior to doctor evaluation in an effort to decrease treatment times.
methodsA prospective, randomized, controlled trial was performed in the ED where medical patients received either the normal ED workflow pathway or one of the enhanced workflow pathways with POC tests in various combinations prior to doctor evaluation. At the end of the study period, doctors were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to gauge their opinions on the implementation of the early POC testing.
resultsOverall, the doctors surveyed were very satisfied with use of upfront POC in the ED. One hundred per cent of the 28 doctors surveyed found it helpful to assess patients who already had test results available and would want it to be permanently available. Normalized satisfaction scores were more favorable for combinations of 3 or more tests (0.7-1.0) as opposed to combinations with 2 or less tests (0.3-0.7). There was a preference for combinations that included comprehensive blood results.
conclusionThe implementation of workflow changes to assist doctors in the ED can potentially make them more productive. End-user buy-in is essential in order for the change to be successful. Upfront, protocolised, POC testing is a low-input, high-yield intervention that decreased treatment time and satisfied doctors.
Indexed as
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.