Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

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 / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 57, Issue 6

Issues

Development of the Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool (POCKET): a checklist for multi-dimensional evidence generation in point-of-care tests

Jeremy R. Huddy
  • Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Melody NiORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7356-848X / Shivani Misra
  • Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Stella Mavroveli
  • Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ James Barlow / George B. Hanna
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-11-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1089

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to develop the Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool (POCKET); a multi-dimensional checklist to guide the evaluation of point-of-care tests (POCTs) incorporating validity, utility, usability, cost-effectiveness and patient experience. The motivation for this was to improve the efficiency of evidence generation in POCTs and reduce the lead-time for the adoption of novel POCTs.

Methods

A mixed qualitative and quantitative approach was applied. Following a literature search, a three round Delphi process was undertaken incorporating a semi-structured interview study and two questionnaire rounds. Participants included clinicians, laboratory personnel, commissioners, regulators (including members of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] committees), patients, industry representatives and methodologists. Qualitative data were analysed based on grounded theory. The final tool was revised at an expert stakeholder workshop.

Results

Forty-three participants were interviewed within the semi-structured interview study, 32 participated in the questionnaire rounds and nine stakeholders attended the expert workshop. The final version of the POCKET checklist contains 65 different evidence requirements grouped into seven themes. Face validity, content validity and usability has been demonstrated. There exists a shortfall in the evidence that industry and research methodologists believe should be generated regarding POCTs and what is actually required by policy and decision makers to promote implementation into current healthcare pathways.

Conclusions

This study has led to the development of POCKET, a checklist for evidence generation and synthesis in POCTs. This aims to guide industry and researchers to the evidence that is required by decision makers to facilitate POCT adoption so that the benefits they can bring to patients can be effectively realised.

Keywords: checklist; diagnostic equipment; diagnostic test approval; point-of-care testing

References

About the article

Corresponding author: Professor George B. Hanna, PhD, FRCS, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, South Wharf Road, London, W2 1NY, UK, Phone: +44 203 312 2124, Fax: +44 203 312 6309


Received: 2018-10-07

Accepted: 2018-10-10

Published Online: 2018-11-09

Published in Print: 2019-05-27


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Transparency statement: The lead author affirms that this article is an honest, accurate and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Research funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative London at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and St Mary’s Hospital, South Wharf Road, London, W2 1NY, UK.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 57, Issue 6, Pages 845–855, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1089.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in