Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Pathologist
  • Explore Pathology

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Research & Innovations
    • Product Profiles

    Featured Topics

    • Molecular Pathology
    • Infectious Disease
    • Digital Pathology

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Subspecialties
    • Oncology
    • Histology
    • Cytology
    • Hematology
    • Endocrinology
    • Neurology
    • Microbiology & Immunology
    • Forensics
    • Pathologists' Assistants
  • Training & Education

    Career Development

    • Professional Development
    • Career Pathways
    • Workforce Trends

    Educational Resources

    • Guidelines & Recommendations
    • App Notes

    Events

    • Webinars
    • Live Events
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Profiles & Community

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Pathologist / Issues / 2019 / Jul / To POCT or Not to POCT?
Point of care testing Clinical care Profession Professional Development

To POCT or Not to POCT?

When commonly ordered tests have reliable POCT alternatives, why are doctors still ordering them from the laboratory?

By Michael Schubert 07/02/2019 Quick Read (pre 2022) 1 min read

Share

Point-of-care diagnostics are becoming increasingly valuable; they save both patients and healthcare providers time and money, and they can provide rapid answers to better triage patients’ need for care. Nonetheless, some of the most commonly ordered tests are not often performed at the point of care, despite the availability of point-of-care testing (POCT) technology.

For instance, consider C-reactive protein (CRP) and neutrophil count (NC), important markers of inflammation. A recent study from the University of Oxford suggests that both tests are in high demand, with general practitioners ordering an average of 36 CRP and 72 NC tests each week (1). But by sending these tests out to a laboratory, doctors often have to wait up to 24 hours for results that could influence their treatment decisions. POCT equivalents for both tests exist – so why aren’t they being used?

The answer might lie in practitioners’ familiarity with the laboratory versions of the tests, or a lack of information about POCT alternatives. Regardless, CRP and NC testing is ripe for the move from laboratory to POCT. “Inflammatory marker laboratory tests are requested frequently in the community, particularly in combination, with many patients needing repeat tests,” said the study’s lead author, José Ordóñez-Mena, in a recent press release (2).

“We also find that CRP test requests are becoming increasingly common in older patients. Given that these tests can now be provided by point-of-care technologies, there is scope for this testing to start moving into the community, carried out by general practitioners for results within minutes, rather than being performed by central laboratories.”

Newsletters

Receive the latest pathology news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. JM Ordóñez-Mena et al., “C-reactive protein and neutrophil count laboratory test requests from primary care: what is the demand and would substitution by point-of-care technology be viable?”, J Clin Pathol, [Epub ahead of print] (2019). PMID: 30992343.
  2. NIHR, “Scope for inflammatory marker laboratory tests to move into community settings” (2019). Available at: https://bit.ly/2EUqtKQ. Accessed June 7, 2019.

About the Author(s)

Michael Schubert

While obtaining degrees in biology from the University of Alberta and biochemistry from Penn State College of Medicine, I worked as a freelance science and medical writer. I was able to hone my skills in research, presentation and scientific writing by assembling grants and journal articles, speaking at international conferences, and consulting on topics ranging from medical education to comic book science. As much as I’ve enjoyed designing new bacteria and plausible superheroes, though, I’m more pleased than ever to be at Texere, using my writing and editing skills to create great content for a professional audience.

More Articles by Michael Schubert

Explore More in Pathology

Dive deeper into the world of pathology. Explore the latest articles, case studies, expert insights, and groundbreaking research.

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

What’s New in Infectious Disease? (December 2021)
Point of care testing
What’s New in Infectious Disease?

December 23, 2021

1 min read

The latest research and news on COVID-19 and the infectious disease landscape

Resisting Resistance
Point of care testing
Resisting Resistance

October 21, 2016

1 min read

Rapid, affordable tests to spot bacterial infections could reduce antibiotic overprescription in resource-limited settings

HIV/AIDS: A Shifting Epidemic
Point of care testing
HIV/AIDS: A Shifting Epidemic

April 4, 2022

1 min read

HIV diagnoses in heterosexual people in the UK have overtaken those in gay and bisexual men

Career Snapshots with Bamidele Farinre
Point of care testing
Career Snapshots with Bamidele Farinre

April 20, 2022

3 min read

Michael Schubert interviews Bamidele Farinre about her work in mobile laboratory testing

False

The Pathologist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.