ArticleCureus2026
Implementation of a Point-of-Care Blood Testing System in a Canadian Emergency Department: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Workflow and Clinician Perceptions.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePoint-of-care blood gas and chemistry testing is commonly used in emergency care to provide rapid biochemical information during initial patient assessment. We evaluated the implementation of the Siemens Healthineers ePOC Blood Analysis System in a tertiary-care Canadian emergency department (ED) by assessing clinician-perceived usability, adequacy of training, satisfaction, and perceived effects on workflow and clinical decision-making.
methodsThis quality-improvement and implementation evaluation was reported in accordance with the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 guidelines, where applicable. The evaluation consisted of (1) a retrospective analysis of core laboratory turnaround times (TATs) during the early implementation period and (2) a post-implementation survey assessing clinician-reported usability, adequacy of training, satisfaction, and perceived effects on workflow efficiency and clinical decision-making. Results: From March to April 2025, the device was used in 42 adult ED patients; 28/42 (66.7%) cases had core laboratory TAT data available. The mean core laboratory TAT was 18 minutes (range: 0-33) for blood gas syringe samples and nine minutes (range: 0-19) for plasma samples. From August to October 2025, 32 clinicians completed the survey. Most respondents reported using ePOC at least monthly (31/32, 96.9%), and 21/32 (65.6%) rated it as easy or very easy to use. Among 29 respondents to the training item, 16 (55.2%) felt training was adequate, while eight (27.6%) felt it was inadequate. Reported benefits included improved efficiency of blood analysis (24/30, 80.0%), shorter time to critical results (25/31, 80.6%), and faster clinical decision-making (25/30, 83.3%). Overall, 24/32 (75.0%) respondents were satisfied or very satisfied, and 29/32 (90.6%) supported continued ED use. Reported barriers included calibration delays, lack of direct electronic medical record integration, and perceived concerns regarding agreement with laboratory values.
conclusionClinician responses were generally supportive of ePOC use, but perceptions of inadequate training and workflow challenges suggest that its benefits may depend on a more structured implementation approach.
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.