Aims The demand for test requests from general practice to laboratory services remains high. Tests performed at the point of care could reduce turnaround time and speed up clinical decision making. Replicating laboratory testing in the community would require panels of tests to be performed simultaneously, which is now approaching technological feasibility. We assessed frequencies and combinations of test requests from community settings to inform the potential future development of multiplex point-of-care panels.
Methods We assessed all laboratory test requests made from general practice in Oxfordshire, UK, from January 2014 to March 2017. We summarised test request frequency overall and in combination, using heatmaps and hierarchical cluster analysis. Results are also presented by age/sex subgroups. We further assessed patterns of tests requested within 7 and 14 days after an initial test request.
Results 11 763 473 test requests were made for 413 073 individuals (28% age >65). Of more than 500 test types, 62 were requested at least 5000 times, most commonly renal function tests (approximately 296 000/year), full blood count (278 000/year) and liver function tests (237 000/year). Cluster analysis additionally identified a clear grouping of tests commonly used to investigate anaemia. Follow-up test frequency was much lower than the frequency of multiple tests ordered at initial presentation.
Conclusions The current high volume of single and combination test requests highlights an opportunity for reliable multiplex point-of-care panels to cover a core set of frequently requested tests. The impact on test use of introducing such panels to general practice requires additional research.
- laboratory tests
- POC testing
- service provision
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Handling editor Tahir S Pillay.
Contributors TRF, AVdB, BS and GNH designed the study. BS and PJT acquired the data files, which were analysed by JMO-M under the supervision of TRF. TRF, JMO-M, PJT, AVdB, BS and GNH contributed to the writing of the manuscript.
Funding This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Community Healthcare Medtech and In Vitro Diagnostics Cooperative (MIC). JMO-M is partly supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford.
Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Data have been provided as online supplementary tables and figures. We are not permitted to supply additional raw data files under the terms of our data sharing agreement.