Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34911451›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

Clinician perspectives on having point of care tests made available to them during out of hours home visiting.

S Dixon, M Glogowska, S Garland, H Hunt, D Lasserson, G Hayward

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S DixonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, England, UK. Sharon.dixon@phc.ox.ac.uk.
M GlogowskaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, England, UK.
S GarlandOxford Health Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Warneford Lane, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7JX, England, UK.
H HuntOxford Health Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Warneford Lane, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7JX, England, UK.
D LassersonWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, England, UK.
G HaywardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, England, UK.
Health Foundation · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about clinicians' perspectives on the use of point of care (POC) tests in assessment of acute illness during primary care out of hours (OOH) care. During a service improvement project, POC tests (including creatinine, electrolytes, haemoglobin and lactate) were made available to clinicians undertaking OOH home visits, with the clinicians allowed absolute discretion about when and whether they used them.

methodTo explore clinicians' perspectives on having POC tests available during OOH home visits, we undertook a qualitative study with clinicians working in Oxfordshire OOH home visiting teams. We conducted 19 Semi-structured interviews with clinicians working in OOH, including those who had and had not used the POC tests available to them. To explore evolving perspectives over time, including experience and exposure to POC tests, we offered clinicians the opportunity to be interviewed twice throughout the study period. Our sample included 7 GPs (4 interviewed once, 3 interviewed twice - earlier and later during the study), 6 emergency practitioners (EPs) including advanced nurse practitioners and paramedics, 1 Healthcare Assistant, and 2 ambulatory care physicians. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

resultsThe clinicians reflected on their decision-making to use (or not use) POC tests, including considering which clinical scenarios were "appropriate" and balancing the resources and time taken to do POC tests against what were perceived as likely benefits. The challenges of using the equipment in patients' homes was a potential barrier, though could become easier with familiarity and experience. Clinicians who had used POC tests described benefits, including planning onward care trajectories, and facilitating communication, both between professionals and with patients and their families.

conclusionClinicians described a discriminatory approach to using POC tests, considering carefully in which situations they were likely to add value to clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

After-Hours CareHouse CallsHumansPoint-of-Care TestingPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchHome visitNear patient testsOut of hours (OOH)Point of care tests (POC) testsPrimary care urgent care

Identifiers

PMID34911451
PMCPMC8675461
OpenAlexW4200415845

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.