How to Realize the Benefits of Point-of-Care Testing at the General Practice: A Comparison of Four High-Income Countries

Quality improvement work in general practice; a Norwegian focus group study

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement work is an essential feature of healthcare services, including general practice. In this study, we aimed to gain more knowledge regarding general practitioners' (GPs) motivation for such work in their practices, as well as what kind of measures were considered motivating and feasible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted five focus group interviews among Norwegian GPs between November 2021 and November 2022. We included 21 GPs of varying age, gender, experience, and geographic situation. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed by Systematic Text Condensation, a thematic cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

Many GPs had a diverse and imprecise understanding of the term quality improvement, and sound routines in everyday practice were often given as examples of quality improvement measures. There was a universal attitude that quality improvement initiatives should be close to practice, professionally relevant, and sufficiently small to be manageable. The availability of professional communities, either in the GP practices or in continuous medical education groups, was important for motivation. The role of nurses and health secretaries was highlighted as essential to achieve change. Participants commonly described negative reactions to programs that were imposed by external actors without regard for the GPs' perceived needs.

CONCLUSION

GPs were motivated for quality improvement measures provided feasibility within the framework of general practice. Well-functioning professional communities, including involvement of nurses and health-secretaries, were emphasised as requisite for quality improvement. Small scale quality improvement programs suited for the needs of general practice were well received and should be further developed.

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in primary care-broader implementation needed to combat antimicrobial resistance

This study presents the perspective of an international group of experts, providing an overview of existing models and policies and guidance to facilitate a proper and sustainable implementation of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) to support antibiotic prescribing decisions for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) with the aim to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AMR threatens to render life-saving antibiotics ineffective and is already costing millions of lives and billions of Euros worldwide. AMR is strongly correlated with the volume of antibiotics used. Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary care, mostly for RTIs, and are often unnecessary. CRP POCT is an available tool and has been proven to safely and cost-effectively reduce antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Though established in a few European countries during several years, it has still not been implemented in many European countries. Due to the complexity of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing behavior, a multifaceted approach is necessary to enable sustainable change. The effect is maximized with clear guidance, advanced communication training for primary care physicians, and delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies. CRP POCT should be included in professional guidelines and implemented together with complementary strategies. Adequate reimbursement needs to be provided, and high-quality, and primary care-friendly POCT organization and performance must be enabled. Data gathering, sharing, and discussion as incentivization for proper behaviors should be enabled. Public awareness should be increased, and healthcare professionals' awareness and understanding should be ensured. Impactful use is achieved when all stakeholders join forces to facilitate proper implementation.

Point-of-care testing performed by healthcare professionals outside the hospital setting: consensus based recommendations from the IFCC Committee on Point-of-Care Testing (IFCC C-POCT)

The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Committee on Point-of-Care Testing (C-POCT) supports the use of point-of-care testing (POCT) outside of the hospital setting performed by healthcare professionals without formal laboratory education because of its numerous benefits. However, these benefits are associated with risks that must be managed, to ensure the provision of reliable test results and minimize harm to the patient. Healthcare professionals, local regulatory bodies, accredited laboratories as well as manufacturers should actively be engaged in education, oversight and advice to ensure that the healthcare professional selects the appropriate equipment and is able to analyze, troubleshoot and correctly interpret the point-of-care (POC) test results.

Point-of-care testing in primary healthcare: a scoring system to determine the frequency of performing internal quality control

OBJECTIVES

Internal quality control (IQC) plays an important role in quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, there is no universal consensus or guideline on when and how IQC should be analyzed on point-of-care testing (POCT) devices. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system to determine how often IQC should be analyzed in primary healthcare on the various POCT devices.

METHODS

Based on a systematic literature review and a thorough process involving the whole Noklus, a nationwide POC organization, a scoring system for when to analyze IQC was developed. Four factors were considered to significantly impact IQC frequency: The importance of the analyte in diagnosing and monitoring patients, type of POCT device, user-friendliness, and number of patient samples. For each POCT device, the first three factors were given a score, and the sum of the scores determined the general recommended IQC frequency. The number of patient samples determined whether and how to adjust these frequencies in each individual general practice.

RESULTS

The scoring system was applied to 17 analytes and 134 different POCT devices (153 analyte-device combinations). Most of the devices analyzing high-risk analytes (71 out of 74) obtained daily or weekly IQC frequency. For example, all blood-cell counters and all glucose meters should undergo IQC daily and weekly, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a consensus-based scoring system for differentiated and device-specific recommendations for IQC frequency on POCT devices in primary healthcare. The scoring system can easily be adopted to other local environments and is easy to use.