手动（视觉读取）和半自动即时检验尿液分析及妊娠试验所需时间与相关电子病历（EMR）转录错误的比较。

Comparison of the time required for manual (visually read) and semi-automated POCT urinalysis and pregnancy testing with associated electronic medical record (EMR) transcription errors.

作者信息

Young Paul E, Diaz Gabriel J, Kalariya Rinaben N, Mann Peggy A, Benbrook Maegan N, Avandsalehi Kurosh R, Petersen John R

机构信息

University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd., Galveston, TX 77555, United States.

出版信息

Clin Chim Acta. 2020 May;504:60-63. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.01.021. Epub 2020 Jan 23.

DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2020.01.021

PMID:31982405

Abstract

BACKGROUND

POCT urinalysis (UA) and urine pregnancy tests (UPT) are routinely performed in obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) clinics by dipstick and pregnancy test kit methods respectively. In this study, we compared the time, efficiency and accuracy of these tests using manual, visually read methods and a semi-automated analyzer that was not interfaced to the EMR.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 2525 patients at five Ob/Gyn clinics. Urine samples were tested using three different dipsticks for UA (2, 7 and 10 test pads) and the Sure-Vue™ urine pregnancy test kit. The samples were analyzed on the CLINITEK Status® Connect System and results compared for time taken and errors in results' transcription.

RESULTS

Using the CLINITEK Status Connect System, average test time and average total test time for UA dipsticks 7 and 10 test pads was significantly less than the manual, visually read method (0.77 and 0.64 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The average test time for manual, visually read Chem 2 was significantly less than the CLINITEK Status Connect System (0.09 min; p = 0.005), but not the average total test time (0.08 min; p = 0.33). Average test time for a negative UPT using the CLINITEK Status Connect System was significantly greater (0.87 min; p < 0.001). We found a transcription error rate of 0.3-1.7% for UA results and none for UPT. About 8% of UA and 12% of UPT results were not documented in EMR.

CONCLUSION

The CLINITEK Status Connect System was more efficient than the manual, visually read process and if interfaced with the EMR would eliminate errors and non-documentation of results.

摘要

背景

即时检验（POCT）尿液分析（UA）和尿妊娠试验（UPT）在妇产科诊所中分别通过试纸条和妊娠试验试剂盒方法常规进行。在本研究中，我们使用手动、目视读取方法和未与电子病历系统（EMR）连接的半自动分析仪比较了这些检测的时间、效率和准确性。

方法

我们在五家妇产科诊所前瞻性招募了2525名患者。使用三种不同的试纸条（2、7和10个测试垫）进行尿液分析，并使用Sure-Vue™尿妊娠试验试剂盒。样本在CLINITEK Status® Connect系统上进行分析，并比较结果记录所花费的时间和结果转录中的错误。

结果

使用CLINITEK Status Connect系统，7个和10个测试垫的UA试纸条的平均检测时间和平均总检测时间显著少于手动目视读取方法（分别为0.77分钟和0.64分钟；p < 0.001）。手动目视读取Chem 2的平均检测时间显著少于CLINITEK Status Connect系统（0.09分钟；p = 0.005），但平均总检测时间并非如此（0.08分钟；p = 0.33）。使用CLINITEK Status Connect系统进行阴性UPT的平均检测时间显著更长（0.87分钟；p < 0.001）。我们发现UA结果的转录错误率为0.3 - 1.7%，而UPT结果无转录错误。约8%的UA结果和12%的UPT结果未记录在EMR中。