Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34413067›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open quality2021

Utilisation of remote capillary blood testing in an outpatient clinic setting to improve shared decision making and patient and clinician experience: a validation and pilot study.

Lisa Nwankwo, Kate McLaren, Jackie Donovan, Zhifang Ni, Alberto Vidal-Diaz, Michael Loebinger, Alice Morrisey, Adam Igra, Anand Shah

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Remote capillary blood collection for HbADiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa Nwankwo *Pharmacy, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK l.nwankwo@rbht.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9146-2873
Kate McLaren *Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jackie DonovanDepartment of Pathology, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Zhifang NiFaculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Alberto Vidal-DiazFaculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Michael LoebingerDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alice MorriseyRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Adam IgraRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anand ShahDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a tertiary respiratory centre, large cohorts of patients are managed in an outpatient setting and require blood tests to monitor disease activity and organ toxicity. This requires either visits to tertiary centres for phlebotomy and physician review or utilisation of primary care services.

objectivesThis study aims to validate remote capillary blood testing in an outpatient setting and analyse impact on clinical pathways.

methodsA single-centre prospective cross-sectional validation and parallel observational study was performed. Remote finger prick capillary blood testing was validated compared with local standard venesection using comparative statistical analysis: paired t-test, correlation and Bland-Altman. Capillary was considered interchangeable with venous samples if all three criteria were met: non-significant paired t-test (ie, p>0.05), Pearson's correlation coefficient (r)>0.8% and 95% of tests within 10% difference through Bland-Altman (limits of agreement). In parallel, current clinical pathways including phlebotomy practice were analysed over 4 weeks to review test predictability. A subsequent pilot cohort study analysed potential impact of remote capillary blood sampling on shared decision making. A final implementation phase ensued to embed the service into clinical pathways within the institution.

results117 paired capillary and venous blood samples were prospectively analysed. Interchangeability with venous blood was seen with glycated haemoglobin (%), total protein and C reactive protein. Further tests, although not interchangeable, are likely useful to enable longitudinal remote monitoring (eg, liver function and total IgE). 65% of outpatient clinic blood tests were predictable with 16% of patients requiring further follow-up. Patient and clinician-reported improvement in shared decision making given contemporaneous blood test results was observed.

conclusionsRemote capillary blood sampling can be used accurately for specific tests to monitor chronic disease, and when incorporated into an outpatient clinical pathway can improve shared decision making and patient experience. Further research is required to determine health economic impact and applicability within telemedicine-based outpatient care.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesDecision Making, SharedCross-Sectional StudiesHematologic TestsHumansPilot ProjectsProspective Studieshealth services researchlaboratory medicineoutpatientsPDSAquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID34413067
PMCPMC8378365
OpenAlexW3195791924

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.