Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D A Fitzmaurice

Publications and source records attributed to D A Fitzmaurice.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Systematic review of near patient test evaluations in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and qualitatively synthesise the findings from all studies that have examined the performance and effect of near patient tests in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Systematic review of published and unpublished research 1986-99. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test performance characteristics, measures of effect on clinical practice or patient outcome. RESULTS: 101 relevant publications were identified. The general quality of these papers was low, and consequently only 32 papers were assessed in detail. Although these papers gave some indication of the value of near patient testing in areas such as anticoagulation monitoring and group A beta haemolytic streptococcus testing, the research raised many more questions than it answered. Almost no reports were found of unbiased assessment of the effect of near patient tests in primary care on patient outcomes, organisational outcomes, or cost. CONCLUSIONS: Available research provides little evidence to guide the expansion of use of near patient testing in primary care. Further research is needed in areas of clinical practice where near patient tests might be most beneficial.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

A primary care evaluation of three near patient coagulometers.

AIM: To compare the reliability and relative costs of three international normalised ratio (INR) near patient tests. MATERIALS: Protime (ITC Technidyne), Coaguchek (Boehringer Mannheim), and TAS (Diagnostic Testing). METHODS: All patients attending one inner city general practice anticoagulation clinic were asked to participate, with two samples provided by patients not taking warfarin. A 5 ml sample of venous whole blood was taken from each patient and a drop immediately added to the prepared Coaguchek test strip followed by the Protime cuvette. The remainder was added to a citrated bottle. A drop of citrated blood was then placed on the TAS test card and the remainder sent to the reference laboratory for analysis. Parallel INR estimation was performed on the different near patient tests at each weekly anticoagulation clinic from July to December 1997. RESULTS: 19 patients receiving long term warfarin treatment provided 62 INR results. INR results ranged from 0.8-8.2 overall and 1.0-5.7 based on the laboratory method. Taking the laboratory method as the gold standard, 12/62 results were < 2.0 and 2/62 were > 4.5. There were no statistical or clinically significant differences between results from the three systems, although all near patient tests showed slightly higher mean readings than the laboratory, and 19-24% of tests would have resulted in different management decisions based on the machine used in comparison with the laboratory INR value. The cost of the near patient test systems varied substantially. CONCLUSIONS: All three near patient test systems are safe and efficient for producing acceptable and reproducible INR results within the therapeutic range in a primary care setting. All the systems were, however, subject to operator dependent variables at the time of blood letting. Adequate training in capillary blood sampling, specific use of the machines, and quality assurance procedures is therefore essential.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed1999

Is the international normalised ratio (INR) reliable? A trial of comparative measurements in hospital laboratory and primary care settings.

AIM: To determine the reliability of international normalised ratio (INR) measurement in primary care by practice nurses using near patient testing (NPT), in comparison with results obtained within hospital laboratories by varied methods. METHODS: As part of an MRC funded study into primary care oral anticoagulation management, INR measurements obtained in general practice were validated against values on the same samples obtained in hospital laboratories. A prospective comparative trial was undertaken between three hospital laboratories and nine general practices. All patients attending general practice based anticoagulant clinics had parallel INR estimations performed in general practice and in a hospital laboratory. RESULTS: 405 tests were performed. Comparison between results obtained in the practices and those in the reference hospital laboratory (gold standard), which used the same method of testing for INR, showed a correlation coefficient of 0.96. Correlation coefficients comparing the results with the various standard laboratory techniques ranged from 0.86 to 0.92. It was estimated that up to 53% of tests would have resulted in clinically significant differences (change in warfarin dose) depending upon the site and method of testing. The practice derived results showed a positive bias ranging from 0.28 to 1.55, depending upon the site and method of testing. CONCLUSIONS: No technical problems associated with INR testing within primary care were uncovered. Discrepant INR results are as problematic in hospital settings as they are in primary care. These data highlight the failings of the INR to standardise when different techniques and reagents are used, an issue which needs to be resolved. For primary care to become more involved in therapeutic oral anticoagulation monitoring, close links are needed between hospital laboratories and practices, particularly with regard to training and quality assurance.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed1999

A novel method of guideline development for the diagnosis and management of mild to moderate hypertension.

BACKGROUND: There are large numbers of clinical guidelines available covering many clinical areas. However, the variable quality of their content has meant that doctors may have been offered advice that has been poorly researched or is of a conflicting nature. It has been shown that local involvement in guideline development increases the likelihood of their use. AIM: To develop a guideline to be used by general practitioners in six practices in Birmingham from existing evidence-based guidelines. METHOD: Recommendations from the four most cited international hypertension guidelines, and the more recently published New Zealand guidelines, were divided into subject areas and tabulated to facilitate direct comparison. Where there was complete or majority (> or = 3/5) agreement, the recommendation was taken as acceptable for inclusion in the new guideline. Where there was disagreement (< or = 2/5), recommendations were based on the best available evidence following a further MEDLINE literature search and critical appraisal of the relevant literature. Each recommendation was accompanied by a grade of evidence (A-D), as defined by the Canadian Hypertension Society, and an 'action required' statement of either 'must', 'should', or 'could', based on the Eli-Lilly National Clinical Audit Centre Hypertension Audit criteria. The recommendations were summarized into a guideline algorithm and a supporting document. The final format of both parts of the guideline was decided after consultation with the practice teams. The practices individually decided on methods of data collection. RESULTS: The guideline was presented as a double-sided, A4 laminated sheet and an A4 bound supporting document containing a synthesis of the original guidelines in tabular form, a table of the resulting recommendations, and appendices of current literature reviews on areas of disagreement. The content of the final Birmingham Clinical Effectiveness Group (BCEG) guideline differed minimally from any of the original guidelines. CONCLUSION: The main strength of this method of guideline development may lie, not in the actual content of the resulting guideline, but in the strength of ownership felt by the BCEG and the practices following its development. While the full process is unlikely to be possible for general practitioners working outside an academic environment, the techniques used could provide a framework for practitioners to adapt national and international guidelines for use at a local level.

Decision Trees↗
PubMed1998

Review of computerized decision support systems for oral anticoagulation management.

Computerized decision support systems (CDSS) are available to assist clinicians in the therapeutic management of oral anticoagulation. We report the findings relating to CDSS for oral anticoagulation management of a primary-care-based systematic review which largely focused on near-patient testing. Seven papers were reviewed which covered four different systems. The methodology of these papers was generally poor, although one randomized controlled trial showed improved therapeutic control associated with computerized management compared with human performance.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1998

Primary care anticoagulant clinic management using computerized decision support and near patient International Normalized Ratio (INR) testing: routine data from a practice nurse-led clinic.

BACKGROUND: Increasing indications for warfarin therapy has led to increased pressure on primary care to undertake therapeutic monitoring. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates a primary care model of oral anticoagulation monitoring which utilises computerized decision support (CDSS) and near patient testing (NPT) within a practice nurse-led clinic. Whilst this has been shown to be a successful model under trial conditions, this paper reports the first data from a long-standing clinic, outside a formal study. METHOD: A prospective evaluation of therapeutic and clinical control of all patients taking warfarin within one inner city general practice. Data were collected via CDSS. RESULTS: 29 patients were seen in 208 appointments. The mean percentage of patients within therapeutic range was 72%. The costs to the practice were pound sterling 1751. The costs the practice would have incurred had these patients been seen at the hospital with the same frequency would have been pound sterling 2290. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CDSS and NPT for nurse-delivered oral anticoagulation monitoring could enable the safe transfer of the majority of patients from secondary to primary care. Funding mechanisms to support the transfer of costs will be essential for most practices, as will be the maintenance of adequate staff training and quality assurance.

Anticoagulants↗
PubMed1998

An evaluation of quality control activity for near patient testing in primary care.

Near patient activity is now increasing within the United Kingdom and can be a valuable activity within primary care, but only within the confines of safe practice that incorporates quality control procedures. This study identified widespread use of near patient testing (NPT) within primary care but that there is a haphazard approach to specific test performance. Results showed a poor understanding of quality control issues and provide a clear indication of future training and educational priorities if NPT is to develop in primary care.

Diagnostic Tests, Routine↗
PubMed1997

A review of near patient testing in primary care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify publications relating to near patient testing (NPT), the use of alternative delivery systems between laboratory and general practice, including electronic data interchange (EDI), and computerised diagnostic decision support (CDDS), in the primary care setting to answer the following questions. What is the availability of NPT for primary care? What evidence is available to support the clinical effectiveness of NPT? What evidence is available on the accuracy and reliability of NPT within primary care? What evidence is available on the cost-effectiveness of different NPTs? How may CDDS improve the effectiveness of NPT? What evidence is available that compares NPT and existing laboratory services? What evidence is available on the cost-effectiveness of EDI or alternative delivery systems? HOW THE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED: Eight databases were searched, and the bibliographies from relevant publications checked for completeness. Unpublished work and publications not included in the databases were obtained by personal contact with collaborators, and from a postal survey sent to heads of academic departments of general practice and clinical chemistry and to researchers active or interested in the field worldwide. Questionnaires were also sent to 150 commercial organisations. Publications that met agreed definitions and reported original data were included in the systematic review. Of the 1057 publications identified, 102 (92 related to NPT, eight to CDDS, and two to EDI) were passed to the reviewers for appraisal of validity. The limited amount of published research relating to any particular NPT prohibited meta-analysis. Scoring systems to assess the validity of evaluations were also difficult to apply. RESEARCH FINDINGS: A wide variety of NPT systems have been developed. In general, the quality of the methods reported in the literature was poor. The issue of patient convenience and acceptability has not been adequately addressed. No evaluations of alternative delivery systems met the review criteria. No studies have evaluated the telephone or fax machine as a means of reporting results. For EDI, the majority of papers were descriptive. EDI and alternative delivery systems are not a replacement for NPT when the provision of an immediate result might have an impact on the quality of care. EDI may have clinical and cost advantages over traditional means of communication, but this has not been evaluated. The advisory role of the laboratory can be supported by CDDS. The use of CDDS and NPT has not, however, been fully evaluated. Few economic analyses have been conducted, and most were simple cost analyses. There are insufficient data for conclusions to be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of NPT in primary care. RECOMMENDATIONS: FURTHER SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: Subject-specific systematic reviews are required that include laboratory and secondary care studies, and consider the potential for altering current management and patient acceptability. Priority topics include: biochemistry profiles on desktop analysers; cholesterol testing; urinalysis for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection; anticoagulation control; NPTs for the identification of acute infection. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗