#I STAT CLEW UPDATE VERIFICATION#

From these observations, we consider it unlikely that routine use of a hand-held POCT device in a large ED such as ours is sufficient by itself to impact ED patient LOS.

Stratifying patients by presenting condition (chest pain, trauma, etc.), discharge/admit status, or presence/absence of other central laboratory tests did not reveal a decrease in patient LOS for any patient subgroup during the experimental period. Median LOS during the experimental period was 209 min vs 201 min for the combined control periods. However, no decrease in ED LOS was observed in the tested patients during the experimental period. Among nearly 15 000 ED patient visits during the study period, 4985 patients (2067 during the experimental period and 2918 during the two control periods) had at least one Na, K, Cl, BUN, or Gluc test ordered from the ED. Patient LOS distribution during the experimental period was compared with the LOS distribution during a 5-week control period before institution of the POCT device and with a 3-week control period after its use. Preliminary data demonstrated acceptable accuracy of the hand-held device. ED patient LOS, defined as the length of time between triage (initial patient interview) and discharge (released to home or admitted to hospital), was examined during a 5-week experimental period in which ED personnel used a hand-held POCT device to perform Na, K, Cl, glucose (Gluc), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) testing. We prospectively investigated whether routine use of a point-of-care testing (POCT) device by nonlaboratory operators in the emergency department (ED) for all patients requiring the available tests could shorten patient length of stay (LOS) in the ED. There is a need to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of near patient testing as a solution to rapid response testing. Most staff indicated that better transport to the laboratory would remove the need for near patient testing.Ĭlinicians have demonstrated an apparent need for rapid response testing but there is a strong preference for rapid transport systems and central laboratory analysis rather than bedside testing as a solution to this problem. A slightly larger proportion indicated they would accept responsibility (44%) for results obtained on the ward than would not (35%). 85% of clinicians trusted results obtained in their central hospital laboratory, but there was an almost equal division between those who did (34%) and those who did not (38%) trust the results from near patient testing. The most frequently cited indication for bedside testing was the need for speed. Blood glucose and dip stick urine testing were the most commonly performed bedside tests, but 41% of clinicians did not use ward testing. Overall, clinicians requested a median of six urgent tests a day. Most demand came from intensive care units. To survey the use made of laboratory services for urgent tests and clinicians' attitudes to near patient testing.Ī questionnaire was sent to clinicians working in acute hospitals within Trent and North West Thames Regions.ġ97 replies were received.

Conclusions The i-STAT Alinity analyzer has good analytical performance, and we established the analyzer meets our safety and regulatory requirements and therefore suitable for use in our hospital as a point-of-care testing device. Method comparison studies revealed that agreement between the i-STAT Alinity analyzer and the central laboratory analyzers was good and clinically acceptable. Linearity concentrations spanning the analytical measuring ranges were demonstrated for all analytes. Results Precision was good (coefficient of variation <2%) for electrolytes, glucose, lactate, and pH, and satisfactory (coefficient of variation <5.2%) for blood gases, urea, creatinine, and hematocrit. The method comparison study was performed using up to 60 leftover anonymized heparinized whole-blood samples and serum samples against existing laboratory instruments (Siemens Rapidpoint 500, Abbott Architect C16000, and Sysmex XN9000).

#I STAT CLEW UPDATE VERIFICATION#

The CLSI-EP6-A guideline was used to verify the assay reportable range performance using 5 levels of linearity material (Abbott i-Stat TriControl Calibration Verification Set). Methods The Abbott i-STAT System Performance Verification Protocol was observed for the imprecision study and was performed over the course of 2 days using 2 levels of control material (Abbott i-STAT TriControl Level 1 and Level 3).

We also evaluated the ease of use, design, and safety features to determine its suitability for use by the clinicians in our hospital. Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of CG4+ and CHEM8+ cartridges on the i-STAT Alinity analyzer prior to use in patient testing.

I stat clew update