3.8 Article

Effective interventions to improve the quality of critically high point-of-care glucose meter results

期刊

PRACTICAL LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.plabm.2020.e00184

关键词

Point-of-care testing; Glucose; Critical result; Repeat testing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Point-of-care testing (POCT) is testing performed outside the traditional laboratory, often at the patient bedside. In hospital settings, blood glucose is the most common POCT. Staff performing POCT are not usually laboratory trained; they are clinical staff with a primary focus on treating patients. Clinical staff find POCT quality assurance (QA) practices burdensome and are often non-compliant. In hospitals within EORLA (Eastern Ontario Regional Laboratories Association), all critically high POCT glucose results must be repeated prior to acting, according to policy. Compliance with this policy is audited regularly. Design: and methods: All POCT glucose tests performed in participating sites between January and June 2018 and June and December 2019 were audited for compliance with the critical repeat policy. The discordant repeat rate was also determined for each audit period. Between January and May 2019, there were interventions aimed at improving compliance with the repeat policy. Results: Compliance with the critical repeat policy increased from 30 to 57% in 2019 compared to 2018, following nursing education and implementation of notifications on the glucose meters themselves. The rate of discordant repeat results (>20% different from initial) also improved at most sites in 2019 compared to 2018. Nurses cited insufficient cleaning of patient hands prior to initial testing as the primary reason for discordant repeats. Conclusions: Operator compliance with POCT QA policies is an ongoing challenge requiring continual audit, feedback and education. A strong POCT multi-disciplinary committee with supports from senior and clinical leadership in an organization are key to improving compliance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据