Objective. —To prevent medical errors, improve user performance, and enhance the quality, safety, and connectivity (bidirectional communication) of point-of-care testing. Participants. —Group A included 37 multidisciplinary experts in point-of-care testing programs in critical care and other hospital disciplines. Group B included 175 professional point-of-care managers, specialists, clinicians, and researchers. The total number of participants equaled 212. Evidence. —This study followed a systems approach. Expert specifications for prevention of medical errors were incorporated into the designs of security, validation, performance, and emergency systems. Additional safeguards need to be implemented through instrument software options and point-of-care coordinators. Connectivity will be facilitated by standards that eliminate deficiencies in instrument communication and device compatibility. Assessment of control features on handheld, portable, and transportable point-of-care instruments shows that current error reduction features lag behind needs. Consensus Process. —Step 1: United States national survey and collation of group A expert requirements for security, validation, and performance. Step 2: Design of parallel systems for these functions. Step 3: Written critique and improvement of the error-prevention systems during 4 successive presentations to group B participants over 9 months until system designs stabilized into final consensus form. Conclusions. —The consensus process produced 6 conclusions for preventing medical errors in point-of-care testing: (1) adopt operator certification and validation in point-of-care testing programs; (2) implement security, validation, performance, and emergency systems on existing and new devices; (3) require flexible, user-defined error-prevention system options on instruments as a prerequisite to federal licensing of new diagnostic tests and devices; (4) integrate connectivity standards for bidirectional information exchange; (5) preserve fast therapeutic turnaround time of point-of-care test results; and (6) monitor invalid use, operator competence, quality compliance, and other performance improvement indices to reduce errors, thereby focusing on patient outcomes. ( Arch Pathol Lab Med . 2001;1307–1315)

Introduction: Delays in adequate antimicrobial treatment contribute to high cost and mortality in sepsis. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are used alongside conventional cultures to accelerate the identification of microorganisms. We analyze the impact on medical outcomes and healthcare costs if improved adequacy of antimicrobial therapy is achieved by providing immediate coverage after positive PCR reports. Methods: A mathematical prediction model describes the impact of PCR-based rapid adjustment of antimicrobial treatment. The model is applied to predict cost and medical outcomes for 221 sepsis episodes of 189 post-surgical and intensive care unit (ICU) sepsis patients with available PCR data from a prospective, observational trial of a multiplex PCR assay in five hospitals. While this trial demonstrated reduction of inadequate treatment days, data on outcomes associated with reduced inadequate initial antimicrobial treatment had to be obtained from two other, bigger, studies which involved 1,147 (thereof 316 inadequately treated) medical or surgical ICU patients. Our results are reported with the (5% to 95%) percentile ranges from Monte Carlo simulation in which the input parameters were randomly and independently varied according to their statistical characterization in the three underlying studies. The model allows predictions also for different patient groups or PCR assays. Results: A total of 13.1% of PCR tests enabled earlier adequate treatment. We predict that cost for PCR testing (300 €/test) can be fully recovered for patients above 717 € (605 € to 1,710 €) daily treatment cost. A 2.6% (2.0 to 3.2%) absolute reduction of mortality is expected. Cost per incremental survivor calculates to 11,477 € (9,321 € to 14,977 €) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to 3,107 € (2,523 € to 4,055 €) per quality-adjusted life-year. Generally, for ICU patients with >25% incidence of inadequate empiric antimicrobial treatment, and at least 15% with a positive blood culture, PCR represents a cost-neutral adjunct method. Conclusions: Rapid PCR identification of microorganisms has the potential to become a cost-effective component for managing sepsis. The prediction model tested with data from three observational trials should be utilized as a framework to deepen insights when integrating more complementary data associated with utilization of molecular assays in the management of sepsis.

Introduction: The surveillance error grid (SEG) analysis is a tool for analysis and visualization of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) errors, based on the opinions of 206 diabetes clinicians who rated 4 distinct treatment scenarios. Resulting from this large-scale inquiry is a matrix of 337 561 risk ratings, 1 for each pair of (reference, BGM) readings ranging from 20 to 580 mg/dl. The computation of the SEG is therefore complex and in need of automation. Methods: The SEG software introduced in this article automates the task of assigning a degree of risk to each data point for a set of measured and reference blood glucose values so that the data can be distributed into 8 risk zones. The software’s 2 main purposes are to (1) distribute a set of BG Monitor data into 8 risk zones ranging from none to extreme and (2) present the data in a color coded display to promote visualization. Besides aggregating the data into 8 zones corresponding to levels of risk, the SEG computes the number and percentage of data pairs in each zone and the number/percentage of data pairs above/below the diagonal line in each zone, which are associated with BGM errors creating risks for hypo- or hyperglycemia, respectively. Results: To illustrate the action of the SEG software we first present computer-simulated data stratified along error levels defined by ISO 15197:2013. This allows the SEG to be linked to this established standard. Further illustration of the SEG procedure is done with a series of previously published data, which reflect the performance of BGM devices and test strips under various environmental conditions. Conclusions: We conclude that the SEG software is a useful addition to the SEG analysis presented in this journal, developed to assess the magnitude of clinical risk from analytically inaccurate data in a variety of high-impact situations such as intensive care and disaster settings.

Background:The objectives of this article were 1) to identify current trends in critical values practices in North America, Europe, and other regions; 2) to describe progress toward harmonization of critical limits; and 3) to synthesize strategies that will encourage global consensus. Critical limits are described in national surveys. Critical value practices are guided by federal statutes, The Joint Commission regulations, and accreditation requirements in the US; by provincial healthcare agencies in Canada; by thought leaders and ISO EN 15189:2007 in Europe; and in SE Asia, mostly by ad hoc policies lacking statutory grip.Methods:Review of databases, literature, websites, federal statutes, litigation, official policies, current affairs, and accreditation agency requirements.Results and conclusions:Practical strategies will accelerate harmonization of critical values practices, as follows: a) continue national and international survey comparisons; b) clarify age, ethnic, and subject dependencies; c) standardize qualitative and quantitative decision levels for urgent clinician notification; d) monitor compliance and timeliness for safety; and e) alert high frequencies of critical values related to adverse events. New expectations and communication technologies present opportunities for enhanced performance using wireless closed-loop reporting with recipient acknowledgment to reduce phone calls and improve efficiency. Hospitals worldwide can benefit from developing consensus for critical values practices.