Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Quality performance of laboratory testing in pharmacies: a collaborative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The quality performance and the comparability between results of pharmacies point-of-care-testing (POCT) and institutional laboratories have been evaluated.

METHODS: Eight pharmacies participated in the project: a capillary specimen collected by the pharmacist and, simultaneously, a lithium-heparin sample drawn by a physician of laboratory medicine for the pharmacy customers (n=106) were analyzed in the pharmacy and in the laboratory, respectively. Glucose, cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, creatinine, uric acid, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, were measured using: Reflotron, n=5; Samsung, n=1; Cardiocheck PA, n=1; Cholestech LDX, n=1 and Cobas 8000. The POCT analytical performance only (phase 2) were evaluated testing, in pharmacies and in the laboratory, the lithium heparin samples from a female drawn fasting daily in a week, and a control sample containing high concentrations of glucose, cholesterol and triglycerides.

RESULTS: For all parameters, except triglycerides, the slopes showed a satisfactory correlation. For triglycerides, a median value higher in POCT in comparison to the laboratory (1.627 mmol/L vs. 0.950 mmol/L) has been observed. The agreement in the subjects classification, demonstrates that for glucose, 70% of the subjects show concentrations below the POCT recommended level (5.8-6.1 mmol/L), while 56% are according to the laboratory limit (<5.6 mmol/L). Total cholesterol exhibits a similar trend while POCT triglycerides show a greater percentage of increased values (21% vs. 9%). The reduction in triglycerides bias (phase 2) suggests that differences between POCT and central laboratory is attributable to a pre-analytical problem.

CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the acceptable analytical performance of POCT pharmacies and specific criticisms in the pre- and post-analytical phases.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app