Tolan, Nicole V.

Abstract Background Point-of-care testing (POCT) has expanded rapidly across healthcare systems, increasing both program scale and operational complexity. However, quantitative benchmarking data describing how POCT programs are structured and supported across institutions remain limited. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey to characterize POCT program support, including program scope, staffing, operational practices, governance, and challenges. The survey was distributed electronically through professional networks, and 93 institutional responses were analyzed. Descriptive analyses were performed, and derived metrics, including sites per point-of-care testing coordinator (POCC), were used to evaluate the relationship between program scale and staffing. Results POCT programs demonstrated substantial variability in scale, with wide ranges in the number of testing sites and operator populations. Adoption spanned multiple test categories, and many institutions reported use of multiple platforms for the same assays. Training, competency assessment, and quality management activities were primarily supported by laboratory staff and POCCs, with documentation frequently partially electronic. Median POCC staffing increased with program size; however, sites per POCC also increased significantly across program scale tiers (Kruskal–Wallis P < 0.001). Governance structures and operational responsibilities varied across institutions, and common challenges included staffing limitations, training and compliance burden, multisite coordination, and IT/connectivity constraints. Conclusions POCT programs are expanding in scale and complexity, but workforce capacity and governance structures have not scaled proportionally. This mismatch creates a cumulative and multiplicative operational burden. These findings provide benchmarking data to inform scalable staffing models, governance strategies, and infrastructure development for sustainable POCT program management.

Abstract Background Despite recommendations to limit vitamin D testing to specific clinical scenarios, test volume remains high in many clinical laboratories. Automated total vitamin D immunoassays frequently under- or over-recover 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 [25(OH)D2], making accurate assessment of vitamin D status difficult in patients taking high-dose 25(OH)D2 supplements. Mass spectrometry-based methods offer excellent recovery of 25(OH)D2 but are not practical for use in all laboratories. In this study, we evaluated 2 automated immunoassays against an LC–MS/MS method performed at a national reference laboratory. Methods A method comparison against LC–MS/MS was performed for the Roche Elecsys Vitamin D total II assay and the IDS-iSYS 25 VitDS immunoassays using 49 patient specimens submitted for clinical 25(OH)D measurement. Mean bias was calculated, and vitamin D status was determined for each specimen according to the 2011 Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines. Results Theil–Sen regression lines relative to LC–MS/MS were y = 0.88x + 2.94 for Roche and y = 1.03x + 2.48 for IDS. Mean bias (±SD) in samples with 25(OH)D2 concentrations less than 5 ng/mL was −0.25 ng/mL (±6.30) for Roche and −1.45 ng/mL (±6.82) for the IDS. Mean bias (±SD) in samples with 25(OH)D2 concentrations greater than 5 ng/mL was −3.19 ng/mL (±6.61) for Roche and 5.52 ng/mL (±6.36) for IDS. Median percentage recovery of 25(OH)D2 was 87.1% (interquartile range 76.0–111.3) for Roche and 120.6% (interquartile range: 105.3–133.4) for IDS. Vitamin D status was misclassified in 7 samples by the Roche assay and 3 by the IDS assay. For all but one of the discordant pairs, the immunoassay result was within 1.7 ng/mL of the diagnostic cutoff. Conclusions The automated immunoassays evaluated here demonstrate improved recovery of 25(OH)D2 relative to previous generations. Both are acceptable for use in the determination of vitamin D status.

Abstract BACKGROUND Anticoagulation protocols used during mechanical circulatory support call for titration of antiplatelet agents. We compared the precision and reliability of 5 platelet function tests in healthy volunteers and donors on daily antiplatelet therapy to distinguish their efficacy for titrating antiplatelet therapy. METHODS We assessed arachidonic acid–induced platelet function by light transmission aggregometry (LTA), Multiplate impedance aggregometry, VerifyNow, and platelet mapping by thromboelastography (TEG PM). We assessed ADP-induced platelet function by the same methods and flow cytometry. Forty healthy volunteers and 10–13 volunteers on daily aspirin and/or clopidogrel therapy were evaluated. We compared tests for intraassay precision, interassay precision (samples from 2 separate blood draws), and reliability coefficient. RESULTS For arachidonic acid–induced platelet aggregation in healthy volunteers, intra- and interassay CVs were ≤10% for all methods. Intra- and interassay precision among donors on daily aspirin was ≤30% for all methods except LTA (38% interassay CV) and TEG PM (95% intraassay and 104% interassay CV). For ADP-induced platelet function, intra- and interassay precision was ≤10% and ≤30% for all methods. Only Multiplate demonstrated moderate or greater (R > 0.40) reliability coefficients for arachidonic acid–induced platelet function among all subjects. All methods of ADP-induced platelet function, except TEG PM, demonstrated substantial or greater (R > 0.60) reliability among all subjects. CONCLUSIONS TEG PM is least suited to monitor effects of antiplatelet agents. Multiplate impedance aggregometry was the only method to demonstrate an acceptable reliability coefficient among healthy volunteers and donors on both aspirin and clopidogrel therapy.