4.2 Article

Design, implementation and results of the quality control program for the Australian government's point of care testing in general practice trial

Journal

ANNALS OF CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 46, Issue -, Pages 413-419

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1258/acb.2009.009045

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Government's Department of Health and Ageing through the Pathology Section, Diagnostics Services Branch

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: From 2005 to 2007 the Australian Government funded a multicentre, clustered randomized controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction and safety of point of care testing (PoCT) in general practice (GP). PoC tests measured (and devices used) in the trial were haemoglobin All c and urine albumin:creatinine ratio (DCA 2000), lipids (Cholestech LDX) and international normalized ratio (CoaguChek S). Methods: An internal quality control (QC) program was developed as part of a quality management framework for the trial. PoCT device operators were provided with a colour-coded QC Result Sheet and QC Action Sheet for on-site recording and interpreting of their results. Within-practice imprecision for QC testing was calculated and compared with the analytical goals for imprecision set prior to the trial. Results: The average participation rate for QC testing was 91% or greater. Median within-practice imprecision met the analytical goals for all PoC tests, except for high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) where observed performance was outside the minimum goal for one level and one lot number of QC. Most practices achieved the imprecision goals for all analytes, with the principal exception of HDL-C. Conclusions: Results from QC testing indicate that PoCT in the GP trial met the analytical goals set for the trial, with the exception of HDL-C.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available