Tsai W W, Nash D B, Seamonds B, Weir G J
Office of Health Policy and Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Clin Ther. 1994 Sep-Oct;16(5):898-910; discussion 854.
A cost-effectiveness study was conducted to determine time and labor costs for point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory testing. A prospective, observational time and motion study was carried out at a teaching hospital located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The cohort consisted of 210 patients presenting to the emergency department who were triaged at the urgent or emergent level during a 4-week period. Patients who had blood drawn for a seven-chemistry profile (Chem-7), which includes analysis of sodium, potassium, chloride, carbon dioxide, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, and creatinine, or for cell blood count (CBC) tests as part of regular care, also had an additional split sample drawn for POC analysis of sodium, potassium, chloride, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, and/or hematocrit. Blood drawn for POC analysis did not require additional needlestick(s), nor did it alter regular care procedures. Physicians and all emergency department staff participating in the care of the patients were blinded to POC test results. Main outcome measures included test turn-around time (TAT), physician determination of impact of rapid TAT and laboratory values on therapeutic approach, and cost per test for POC versus central laboratory testing. POC TAT was a mean of 8 minutes (time from blood drawn to results shown on the POC device display). Central laboratory TAT was a mean of 59 minutes (time from blood drawn to entry of results into mainframe computer). Therapeutic TAT was a mean of 1 hour and 25 minutes (time from blood drawn to analysis in central laboratory, to when the physician viewed test results). After therapeutic course of care was decided for the patient, physicians reported that POC testing, independent of other rate-limiting steps, would have resulted in earlier therapeutic action for 40 of 210 (19.0%) patients. The cost per test for Chem-7 and CBC tests was $11.14 and $9.48, respectively. The cost per test for POC analysis ranged from $14.37 to $16.67, depending on the POC test volume (estimated volume based on 20% to 50% of emergency department patients that had either Chem-7 or CBC test done applied over the useful life of the POC testing equipment) and the personnel (nurse or emergency department technician) who performed the test. With an increasing volume of POC tests performed per unit time, costs for POC testing would be reduced substantially. POC test costs are volume dependent under current reimbursement mechanisms for emergency department patient care services, for example, fee-for-service payment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
开展了一项成本效益研究,以确定即时检验(POC)与中心实验室检测的时间和人力成本。在宾夕法尼亚州费城的一家教学医院进行了一项前瞻性观察性时间与动作研究。该队列由210名到急诊科就诊的患者组成,这些患者在4周内被分诊为紧急或急重症级别。作为常规护理一部分进行七项血液生化指标(包括钠、钾、氯、二氧化碳、血尿素氮、葡萄糖和肌酐分析)或血细胞计数(CBC)检测而采血的患者,还额外采集一份分流样本用于POC分析钠、钾、氯、血尿素氮、葡萄糖和/或血细胞比容。用于POC分析的采血不需要额外针刺,也不会改变常规护理程序。参与患者护理的医生和所有急诊科工作人员对POC检测结果不知情。主要结局指标包括检测周转时间(TAT)、医生对快速TAT和实验室值对治疗方法影响的判定,以及POC与中心实验室检测的每次检测成本。POC的TAT平均为8分钟(从采血到POC设备显示屏显示结果的时间)。中心实验室的TAT平均为59分钟(从采血到结果录入主机计算机的时间)。治疗TAT平均为1小时25分钟(从采血到在中心实验室分析,再到医生查看检测结果的时间)。在为患者确定治疗方案后,医生报告称,在210名患者中有40名(19.0%)患者,独立于其他限速步骤之外,POC检测本可导致更早的治疗行动。Chem-7和CBC检测的每次检测成本分别为11.14美元和9.48美元。POC分析的每次检测成本在14.37美元至16.67美元之间,具体取决于POC检测量(基于在POC检测设备使用寿命期间进行Chem-7或CBC检测的急诊科患者的20%至50%估算的检测量)以及进行检测的人员(护士或急诊科技术人员)。随着单位时间内进行的POC检测量增加,POC检测成本将大幅降低。在急诊科患者护理服务目前的报销机制下,例如按服务收费,POC检测成本取决于检测量。(摘要截选至400字)