Early experiences with quality-assured HbA1c and professional glucose point-of-care testing in general practice: a cross-sectional observational study among patients, nurses and doctors.
Diabetes Mellitus (MeSH)
General practice
Point-of-Care Testing (MeSH)
Primary Health Care (MeSH)
Primary care nursing (MeSH)
Journal
BMC nursing
ISSN: 1472-6955
Titre abrégé: BMC Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088683
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jul 2022
08 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
21
12
2021
accepted:
01
07
2022
entrez:
8
7
2022
pubmed:
9
7
2022
medline:
9
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Point-of-care testing (POCT) is increasingly used in primary care. The rapid availability of the test result during the patient encounter increases the potential for patients and care providers to make a direct and joint decision on disease management. Our aim was to get insight into the first experiences of patients and healthcare professionals after introducing quality-controlled HbA1c and professional glucose POCT in diabetes care in their own general practices. A cross-sectional observational study using paper questionnaires for patients, nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in 13 general practices in the Netherlands. HbA1c and professional glucose POCT was introduced after training and under day-to-day quality control. Patients filled in the questionnaire immediately after the test; nurses and GPs after a minimum period of three months from the starting date. Descriptive data analyses were performed. A total of 1551 fingerstick blood POC tests were performed (1126 HbA1c; 425 Glucose). For HbA1c POCT, 84 patients, 29 nurses and 11 GPs filled in the questionnaires. For professional glucose POCT, 30 patients, 17 nurses and 8 GPs responded. Response rates varied between 24 and 56%. Patients, nurses and GPs were generally (very) satisfied with the novel POC tests. Patients were most positive about the location (in the GPs' office) and execution of the POC test (by their own nurse), and the speed of the test result. Almost all nurses indicated to have sufficient knowledge and skills to perform the test. Both nurses and GPs had confidence in the test results and indicated they experienced a higher patient satisfaction than with regular blood tests. Perceived disadvantages were the time required to regularly calibrate the devices and the extension of the consultation time because of the test. Patients, nurses and GPs generally expressed they wanted to continue performing these POC tests in routine diabetes care. Patients, nurses and GPs expressed (very) positive first experiences after introducing HbA1c and professional glucose testing on two high-quality POCT devices in their own general practices. Further research, with a random selection procedure of practices and patients and in other regions and countries, is recommended to confirm these findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Point-of-care testing (POCT) is increasingly used in primary care. The rapid availability of the test result during the patient encounter increases the potential for patients and care providers to make a direct and joint decision on disease management. Our aim was to get insight into the first experiences of patients and healthcare professionals after introducing quality-controlled HbA1c and professional glucose POCT in diabetes care in their own general practices.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional observational study using paper questionnaires for patients, nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in 13 general practices in the Netherlands. HbA1c and professional glucose POCT was introduced after training and under day-to-day quality control. Patients filled in the questionnaire immediately after the test; nurses and GPs after a minimum period of three months from the starting date. Descriptive data analyses were performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 1551 fingerstick blood POC tests were performed (1126 HbA1c; 425 Glucose). For HbA1c POCT, 84 patients, 29 nurses and 11 GPs filled in the questionnaires. For professional glucose POCT, 30 patients, 17 nurses and 8 GPs responded. Response rates varied between 24 and 56%. Patients, nurses and GPs were generally (very) satisfied with the novel POC tests. Patients were most positive about the location (in the GPs' office) and execution of the POC test (by their own nurse), and the speed of the test result. Almost all nurses indicated to have sufficient knowledge and skills to perform the test. Both nurses and GPs had confidence in the test results and indicated they experienced a higher patient satisfaction than with regular blood tests. Perceived disadvantages were the time required to regularly calibrate the devices and the extension of the consultation time because of the test. Patients, nurses and GPs generally expressed they wanted to continue performing these POC tests in routine diabetes care.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients, nurses and GPs expressed (very) positive first experiences after introducing HbA1c and professional glucose testing on two high-quality POCT devices in their own general practices. Further research, with a random selection procedure of practices and patients and in other regions and countries, is recommended to confirm these findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35804341
doi: 10.1186/s12912-022-00969-0
pii: 10.1186/s12912-022-00969-0
pmc: PMC9263435
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
183Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Coll Radiol. 2019 Feb;16(2):156-163
pubmed: 30482736
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012 Nov;50(11):1985-92
pubmed: 22718643
Med J Aust. 2009 Jun 1;190(11):624-6
pubmed: 19485840
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Jan 10;20(1):8
pubmed: 30630430
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Oct;26(5):501-10
pubmed: 24951511
Harv Bus Rev. 2003 Dec;81(12):46-54, 124
pubmed: 14712543
Diabetes Care. 2003 Apr;26(4):1158-63
pubmed: 12663590
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Mar;15(3):253-9
pubmed: 23413939
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2017 Feb 1;55(2):167-180
pubmed: 27658148
IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2016 Jun 13;4:2800208
pubmed: 27574576
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2016 Dec;76(8):657-663
pubmed: 27739331
Fam Pract. 2018 Jul 23;35(4):475-480
pubmed: 29385437
Diabet Med. 2007 Jul;24(7):792-5
pubmed: 17451419
BMC Fam Pract. 2015 Feb 05;16:9
pubmed: 25648985
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Nov 1;10(6):1308-1315
pubmed: 27113451
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2009 Oct;7(4):213-7
pubmed: 25136396
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Aug 14;14:117
pubmed: 23945264
Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Mar;60(572):e98-104
pubmed: 20202351
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021 May;15(3):561-567
pubmed: 33233954
Clin Chem. 2014 Aug;60(8):1062-72
pubmed: 24865164
J Appl Lab Med. 2020 May 1;5(3):480-493
pubmed: 32445365
BMJ Open. 2014 Aug 08;4(8):e005611
pubmed: 25107438