Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33145388›Full record

ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2020

Effective interventions to improve the quality of critically high point-of-care glucose meter results.

Julie Lv Shaw, Christopher R McCudden, David A Colantonio, Ronald A Booth, Danny C Lin, Ivan M Blasutig, Thomas Moran, Dana Trofimczuk, Chantal Carriere, Anas Gharra and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

20 authors.

Julie Lv ShawEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Christopher R McCuddenEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
David A ColantonioEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Ronald A BoothEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Danny C LinEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Ivan M BlasutigEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Thomas MoranEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Dana TrofimczukEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Chantal CarriereEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Anas GharraEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Cheryl PortelanceEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Chantal TremblayEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Dianne DupaulEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Nathalie BretonEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Merina AngelkovskiEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Chetan JariwalaEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Maureen EmbletonEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Christine CampbellEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Kristina GroulxEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.
Karen LarmourEastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPoint-of-care testing (POCT) is testing performed outside the traditional laboratory, often at the patient bedside. In hospital settings, blood glucose is the most common POCT. Staff performing POCT are not usually laboratory trained; they are clinical staff with a primary focus on treating patients. Clinical staff find POCT quality assurance (QA) practices burdensome and are often non-compliant. In hospitals within EORLA (Eastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association), all critically high POCT glucose results must be repeated prior to acting, according to policy. Compliance with this policy is audited regularly.

designand methods: All POCT glucose tests performed in participating sites between January and June 2018 and June and December 2019 were audited for compliance with the critical repeat policy. The discordant repeat rate was also determined for each audit period. Between January and May 2019, there were interventions aimed at improving compliance with the repeat policy.

resultsCompliance with the critical repeat policy increased from 30 to 57% in 2019 compared to 2018, following nursing education and implementation of notifications on the glucose meters themselves. The rate of discordant repeat results (>20% different from initial) also improved at most sites in 2019 compared to 2018. Nurses cited insufficient cleaning of patient hands prior to initial testing as the primary reason for discordant repeats.

conclusionsOperator compliance with POCT QA policies is an ongoing challenge requiring continual audit, feedback and education. A strong POCT multi-disciplinary committee with supports from senior and clinical leadership in an organization are key to improving compliance.

Indexed as

Critical resultGlucosePoint-of-care testingRepeat testing

Identifiers

PMID33145388
PMCPMC7596339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.