Evaluation of patient perceptions and outcomes related to anticoagulation point-of-care testing in ambulatory care clinics

  • Amy N. Thompson
  • Kelly R. Ragucci
  • Joli D. Fermo
  • Heather P. Whitley
Keywords: Point-of-Care Systems, Patient Satisfaction, Pharmaceutical Services, United States

Abstract

Until recently, Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR) measurements have typically been used to monitor patients on warfarin through institutional laboratories via venous puncture. The Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) device has revolutionized the patient care process by allowing for laboratory testing outside of the central laboratory.

Objective: To analyze humanistic and clinical outcomes in patients currently treated with warfarin and monitored through a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic using point-of-care testing (POCT) device versus venipuncture within ambulatory care clinics at our institution.

Methods: All patients currently treated with warfarin therapy who were managed by clinical pharmacists for anticoagulation monitoring at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Family Medicine Center and University Diagnostic Center, were enrolled. Patients were asked to complete a satisfaction survey regarding their anticoagulation monitoring. In addition, data related to emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations and percent of time in the INR therapeutic range for 6 months pre- and post-implementation of POCT device was collected. This information was obtained through an electronic patient information database, Oacis.

Results: A total of 145 patients were included in the data collection from the two clinics. The majority (41%) of these patients were taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation. Satisfaction surveys were completed by 86 (59 %) of patients. The surveys revealed that POCT device was preferred over venipuncture in 95% of patients. Reasons for the preference included more face-to-face interaction, less wait time, less pain, less blood needed, and quicker results. Of the 145 patients who were included in the objective data analysis, no significant differences were found in the number of hospitalizations, ED visits, or percent of time in the INR therapeutic range pre- and post- implementation of POCT device.

Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate improvement in patient satisfaction with POCT compared to venipuncture, with limited value in clinical outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Yamreudeewong W, Johnson JV, Cassidy TG, Berg JT. Comparison of two methods for INR determination in a pharmacist-based oral anticoagulation clinic. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;16:1159-1165.

2. Chapman DC, Stephens MA, Hamann GL, Bailey LE, Dorko CS. Accuracy, clinical correlation and patient acceptance of two handheld prothrombin time monitoring devices in the ambulatory setting. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33(7-8):775-780. DOI 10.1345/aph.18317

3. Pierce MT, Crain L, Smith J, Mehta V. Point-of-care versus laboratory measurement of the internationalized normalized ration. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2000;57(24):2271-2274.

4. Rigelsky JM, Choe HM, Curtis DM, Brosnan MJ, Mitrovich S, Streetman DS. Accuracy of the AvoSure PT Pro System compared with a hospital laboratory standard. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36(3):380-385. DOI 10.1345/aph.1A253

5. Lizotte A, Quessy I, Vanier MC, Martineau J, Caron S, Darveau M, Dubé A, Gilbert E, Blais N, Lalonde L. Reliability, validity and ease of use of portable point-of-care coagulation device in a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinc. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2002;14(3):247-254.

6. Gardiner C, Williams K, Mackie IJ, Machin SJ, Cohen H. Patient self-testing is a reliable and acceptable alternative to laboratory INR monitoring. Br J Haematol. 2005;128(2):242-247.

7. Sunderji R, Gin K, Shalansky K, Carter C, Chambers K, Davies C, Schwartz L, Fung A. Clinical impact of point-of-care vs laboratory measurement of anticoagulation. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123(2):184-188.

8. Dorfman DM, Goonan EM, Boutilier MK, Jarolim P, Tanasijevica M, Goldhaber SZ.Point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory instrumentation for monitoring oral anticoagulation. Vasc Med. 2005;10(1):23-27.

9. Boehlen F, Reber G, Moerloose P. Agreement of a new whole-blood PT/INR test using capillary samples with plasma INR determinations. Thromb Res. 2005;115(1-2):131-4.
Published
2009-12-14
How to Cite
1.
Thompson AN, Ragucci KR, Fermo JD, Whitley HP. Evaluation of patient perceptions and outcomes related to anticoagulation point-of-care testing in ambulatory care clinics. Pharm Pract (Granada) [Internet]. 2009Dec.14 [cited 2019Aug.18];7(4):213-7. Available from: https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/140
Section
Original Research