Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/85735
Title: Utilization of point-of-care tests among general practitioners : a cross-sectional study
Author(s): Oehme, Ricarda
Sandholzer-Yilmaz, Angelika Sabine
Heise, Marcus
Frese, Thomas
Fankhaenel, Thomas
Issue Date: 2022
Type: Article
Language: English
Abstract: Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) has numerous potential benefits to improve health care service, especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to identify which POC-tests (POCTs) of laboratory parameters are known, employed, and rated as useful by general practitioners (GPs). Methods: A questionnaire with 27 POCTs was posted to a random selection of GPs (n = 451) in Saxony, Germany. Results A total of 208 GPs replied (response rate 46.1%). Out of 27 POCTs, each GP knew an average of 20.3 as laboratory parameters and 9.2 as POCTs. Urine test strips (99.0%), blood glucose test (98.1%), and Troponin I/T (86.4%) were the best-known, followed by INR/Quick (82.5%), Microalbumin (79.1%), and D-dimer (78.6%) POCTs. Yet, solely 0 to 13 POC tests were actually used (mean value 4.6). Urine test strips were employed most frequently (97.6%), followed by blood glucose test (94.7%), Troponin I/T (57.8%), Microalbumin (57.3%), and INR/Quick POCTs (41.7%). Heart fatty binding protein (H-FABP), Syphilis, Coeliac disease, and Malaria appeared as the least frequently used POCTs. The majority of the GPs declared 14 of the 27 POCTs to be useful. Discussion/conclusion: The most recurrently employed POCTs are those for diagnosing or monitoring diabetes mellitus, ensued by POCTs addressing acute cardiovascular diseases (Troponin I/T, D-dimer) or monitoring the therapy of infectious diseases or the anticoagulant therapy. POCTs most often rated as useful by GPs are also widely known and frequently used. Nonetheless, the majority of GPs rate only a very limited number of POCTs as useful. Frequent concerns might be low economic benefit, over-reliance, and test accuracy coming along with the complex implementation of the tests requiring technical skills, accurate storage, and the correct interpretation of test results. Trial registration: In accordance with the (Model) Professional Code for Physicians in Germany, neither human body materials nor data that can be assigned to a specific human being are used in our study. A declaration of no objection from the Ethics Committee of the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Medical Faculty) confirms no professional or ethical concerns due to completely anonymized data collection and analysis. Our study was therefore not registered in a corresponding registry.
URI: https://opendata.uni-halle.de//handle/1981185920/87687
http://dx.doi.org/10.25673/85735
Open Access: Open access publication
License: (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0(CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
Sponsor/Funder: Publikationsfonds MLU
Journal Title: BMC primary care
Publisher: BioMed Central
Publisher Place: London
Volume: 23
Original Publication: 10.1186/s12875-022-01643-9
Appears in Collections:Open Access Publikationen der MLU

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
s12875-022-01643-9.pdf1.2 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open