Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.

12 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 3.017
Rank 5 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.873
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.982
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 2.238

See all formats and pricing
Volume 45, Issue 6 (Jun 2007)


Point-of-care testing, medical error, and patient safety: a 2007 assessment

Sharon S. Ehrmeyer
  • 1Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
/ Ronald H. Laessig
  • 2Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA, Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA and State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
Published Online: 2007-06-19 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2007.164


Point-of-care testing (POCT) is the fastest growing segment of a US$30 billion worldwide market. “Errors” in the testing process, as well as medical data interpretation and treatment associated with POCT, are recognized as leading to major compromises of patient safety. In today's environment, most testing errors (pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical) can be virtually eliminated by proper design of testing systems. We cite examples of two systems that have made exceptional progress in this respect. It has been recently suggested that the basic errors associated with the testing process are amplified in the POC setting. Two of the amplifiers – incoherent regulations and failure of clinician/caregivers to respond appropriately to POCT results – lead us to recognize additional changes in today's POCT environment. The first is a willingness of manufacturers, not laboratories, to take responsibility for the quality of test results – an outgrowth of an industrial philosophy called autonomation. The second is a need to substantially modify the clinician/caregiver test utilization paradigm to take full advantage of POCT results, available on site in real time. Both have already begun to take place.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:766–73.

Keywords: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulation; clinical laboratory testing; errors; patient safety; point-of-care testing; quality

About the article

Corresponding author: Sharon Ehrmeyer, PhD, MT(ASCP) Professor, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Director, MT/CLS, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53706, USA Phone: +1-608-2620859, Fax: +1-608-2629520,

Published Online: 2007-06-19

Published in Print: 2007-06-01

Citation Information: Clinical Chemical Laboratory Medicine, ISSN (Online) 14374331, ISSN (Print) 14346621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2007.164. Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Aashish Priye, Season Sze-Shun Wong, Yuanpeng Bi, Miguel Carpio, Jamison Chang, Mauricio Coen, Danielle Cope, Jacob Harris, James Johnson, Alexandra Keller, Richard Lim, Stanley Lu, Alex Millard, Adriano Pangelinan, Neal Patel, Luke Smith, Kamfai Chan, and Victor M. Ugaz
Analytical Chemistry, 2016
Mario Plebani
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2013, Volume 51, Number 1
Daniil Karnaushenko, Bergoi Ibarlucea, Sanghun Lee, Gungun Lin, Larysa Baraban, Sebastian Pregl, Michael Melzer, Denys Makarov, Walter M. Weber, Thomas Mikolajick, Oliver G. Schmidt, and Gianaurelio Cuniberti
Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2015, Page n/a
Andreas Bietenbeck, Ralf Junker, and Peter B. Luppa
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2015, Volume 14, Number 1, Page 1
Claudette de Vries, Carine Doggen, Ellen Hilbers, Robert Verheij, Maarten IJzerman, Robert Geertsma, and Ron Kusters
BMC Family Practice, 2015, Volume 16, Number 1, Page 9
Luc Bissonnette and Michel G. Bergeron
Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2012, Volume 2, Number 4, Page 50
E. West, D. Bardell, and J. M. Senior
Journal of Small Animal Practice, 2014, Volume 55, Number 3, Page 139
Mario Plebani
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2009, Volume 404, Number 1, Page 59
R Bercich, J Bernhard, K Larson, and J Lindsey
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 2011, Volume 58, Number 3, Page 759
Angelika Niemz, Tanya M. Ferguson, and David S. Boyle
Trends in Biotechnology, 2011, Volume 29, Number 5, Page 240
Murilo R. Melo, Samantha Clark, and Daniel Barrio
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2011, Volume 49, Number 4
Martina Zaninotto and Mario Plebani
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2010, Volume 48, Number 7
Jeannette Y. Wick
The Consultant Pharmacist, 2010, Volume 25, Number 7, Page 416
L. Bissonnette and M.G. Bergeron
Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2010, Volume 16, Number 8, Page 1044
Jürgen Durner
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2009, Volume 49, Number 6, Page 1026
Gurdeep Singh Dhatt, Sumedha Sahni, Theresa Van Jaarsveld, David James, and Steven Matarelli
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2008, Volume 7, Number 4, Page 248
Linda Goodwin
Nursing Management (Springhouse), 2008, Volume 39, Number 3, Page 40

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in