Frank always honored his scheduled appointments at the diabetes clinic, but often missed follow-up appointments to discuss test results due to work commitments. When his clinic introduced on-site A1C testing, Frank received his test results and counseling on diabetes management in his routine appointment. The result showed Frank’s A1C levels had been increasing over the last two years, and his diabetes nurse discussed affordable lifestyle changes he could make to improve his glycemic control. At his next appointment, the care team were pleased to see that Frank’s A1C level had decreased.
Sofia was desperately worried about chlamydia infection. Rather than wait a week for a GP appointment, she presented at the emergency room. The clinicians there ran a test on their benchtop PCR analyzer. Whilst, unfortunately, it confirmed Sofia’s suspicions, the fast result allowed her to start treatment that same day.
Nadiya was insistent that her child needed antibiotics for a sore throat. Her doctor took a swab and ordered a point of care test for Group A Streptococcal pharyngitis while Nadiya waited. The negative result spared the child from an inappropriate antibiotics prescription, and Nadiya was advised on how to manage the symptoms.
Point of care testing (POCT) is undoubtedly beneficial from a patient perspective. And it relieves pressure on labs. But how do laboratory medicine professionals feel about non-specialists carrying out sensitive tests? What are the error rates? Are clinicians able to maintain their competencies in POCT amongst all their other tasks?
As well as sharing some of the latest developments in POCT technologies, our feature article takes an in-depth look at the pros and cons of POCT. After hearing our experts’ take, why not share your views with The Pathologist. What are your hopes and fears for POCT? Join the debate: edit@thepathologist.com
Newsletters
Receive the latest pathology news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
