ACLS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mastrovitch, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Gold, N. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mastrovitch, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Gold, N. A.
Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science 32:383-386 (2002)
© 2002 Association of Clinical Scientists

Point-of-Care Testing For Drugs of Abuse in an Urban Emergency Department

Todd A. Mastrovitch1, William G. Bithoney2, Vincent A. DeBari3 and Nina A. Gold1
1 Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, The St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center, 2 The St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital, and 3 The St. Joseph’s Research Institute, Paterson, New Jersey

Address correspondence to Todd A Mastrovitch, M.D., Monmouth Medical Center, Emergency Department, 300 Second Ave, Long Branch, NJ, 07740, USA; tel 732 923 7300; fax 732 923 7303; e-mail pemtodd{at}worldnet.att.net.

Point-of-care testing (POCT) has been used for illicit substance screening in several settings, primarily in law enforcement and drug treatment centers. In this study, we evaluate the use of this screening approach in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary-care, urban medical center. Aliquots of urine specimens were tested simultaneously by a POCT device (OnTrakTM) and by a laboratory-based screening system (TriageTM). The outcomes that were compared included (a) time to completion of test, (b) time until the physician received the results, and (c) concordance of results obtained by the two analytical methods. The study population included pediatric (<= 21 yr) and adult (>21 yr) patients; data from 170 subjects were evaluated. We observed significant reductions (p <0.001) in turnaround time (both the time to completion and the time to physician). Concordance between the results obtained by the two analytical methods was excellent (97% agreement for cocaine; 99% agreement for marijuana, opiates, and amphetamines, p <0.001 for all categories). Cost analysis showed at least 37.5% decrease in cost per analyte when urine samples were tested by the POCT device, compared to the laboratory-based screening system. We conclude that POCT for drugs of abuse in the ED was equally effective, less costly, and more rapid than the laboratory-based screening system.

Keywords: Point-of-care testing, clinical decision analysis, drugs of abuse






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the Association of Clinical Scientists.