Bibliographic Information - Author (s) - Yr Published/Submitted - Publication - Author Affiliations - Funding	Study - Design - Facility/Setting - Time Period - Sample - Comparator - Study Bias	Practice - Description - Duration - Training - Staff/Other Resources - Cost	Outcome Measures - Description (s) - Recording method	Results/Findings - Type of Findings - Findings/Effect Size - Stat. Significance/Test(s) - Results/Conclusion Bias
Colard, DR - 2005 - Point of Care - Department of Pathology, Saint Luke’s Hospital; Kansas City, MO - Funding: not reported	- Design: Before-after - Facility/Setting: Saint Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, MO; 629-bed tertiary care teaching hospital for Univ. of Missouri - Kansas City School of Med. - Time Period: 12/2002 – 12/2003 Pre: 1 mo. (11/2002) Post: 9 mos. (4/2003 – 12/2003) Implementation: 4 mos. (12/2002–3/2003); scan rates <75%. - Sample: All inpatient point-of- care glucose tests during study period. No data provided for # tests or tests/mo. Used for study. Before implementation: ~12,000 tests/mo.; at end of study period: >15,000 tests/mo. - Comparator: Manual entry of patient ID and test results with a scripted interface to the LIS. Glucose meter without optional barcode wand. - Study limitation: Possible unexplained sample increase.	- Description: POCT Barcoding with barcode reader, barcoded patient armbands, direct HL7 interface to LIS. - Duration: 19 mos.; 12/2002– 5/2004; ongoing - Training: Provided to all nursing staff; those with high scan errors received additional training. Due to modifications, additional training required. - Staff/Other Resources: nursing staff (operators); POCT coordinator implement new process change - Cost: Not reported - Additional information: Multiple changes and problems affecting early scan and error rates including change in symbology/reduction in width of bar code (2/2003), new armband with label pouch (3/2003), improper armband assembly, armband assembly training (4/2003). Monthly scan rate ranged from 76% (4/2003) to ≥ 90% (6/2003–12/2003).	- Description: (1) Patient ID Error Rate - % patient identification error rate for point-of-care blood glucose tests (2) Number of identification errors/unidentified point- of-care blood glucose test results - Recording method: Not described.	- Pretest-Posttest - Findings/Effect Size (1) ID Error Rate (monthly)* Pre: 9.4% Post: 0.7% Absolute decrease: 8.7% Relative decrease: 92.6% ➢ OR = 14.72 (CI: 13.47 – 16.08) (2) # ID Errors/unidentified test results (monthly) Pre: 404 Post: 25 - Stat. Significance/Test(s): Not reported - Results/Conclusion Bias: Data presented as reported above however after 12/2003 one additional month reported following “additional operator training” - 5/2004: (1) ID Error Rate: 0.18%; (2) 6 errors. Not included as no data reported for 1/2003–4/2004). * Sample size not explicitly reported; effect size calculated based on authors’ monthly test volume estimates in article.
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 8 (Good) Effect Size Rating: Substantial (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 3	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 1; Recording method not adequately described.(−1)	Results/findings (3 pts max.): 2; - Appropriateness of statistical analysis; Does not provide data sufficient to allow/verify calculation of an effect size– sample size (−1)
Nichols JH [1,2], Bartholomew C [2], Brunton M [2], Cintron C [2], Elliott S [2], McGirr, J [2], Morsi, D [2], Scott, S, Seipel, J [2] and Sinha D [2] - 2004 - Clinical Leadership Management Review [1] Tufts University School of Medicine [2] Baystate Health System, Springfield, MA. - Funding: Self-financed	- Design: Before-After - Description: Baystate Health System, integrated delivery network, western MA; 3 hospitals; > 850 beds; (Baystate Med. Ctr., Franklin Med. Ctr., Mary Lane Hospital). - Time Period: 1/ 2002–1/2004 Pre: 10 mos. (1/2002–10/2002) Post: 15 mos. (11/2002– 1/2004) - Sample: All Intensive Care Unit (ICU) blood gas and glucose POCTs for all 3 hospitals; annual system-wide volume ~600,000 glucose and blood gas tests. - Comparator: POCT with manual entry of patient ID and operator code with operator lock out “3-Strike Rule” for ID entry errors (began 6/2002) - Study Bias: Operator problems reading barcoded wristbands in first months -not quantified.	- Description: POCT Barcoding 5-digit operator code and 9-digit patient account number - Duration: 15 months (11/2002 – 1/2004); ongoing - Training: Not reported - Staff/Other Resources: Nursing and pathology departments - Cost: Not reported	- Description: # POCT Patient ID errors per month (count): (1) Glucose meter (2) Blood gas - Recording method: POCT devices electronic data collection, POCT program monthly data collection and review as well as POCT coordinators regular compliance monitoring.	- Pretest-Posttest: - Findings/Effect Size: Identification errors (1)Glucose meter Pre: 26 / month Post: 1 / month (p = 0.0007) (2) Blood gas Pre: 4.6/ month Post: 1.7 / month* (p = 0.048) ➢ OR: N/A due to insufficient data *Included one patient with 11 errors in one month due to scanning barcoded wristband from another hospital - Stat. Significance/Test(s): Not reported; p-values provided - Results/Conclusion Bias: Sample sizes or monthly volumes not provided for ICU POC glucose meter and blood gas tests.
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 5 (Poor: Results/Findings rating = 0) Effect Size Rating: N/A (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 2 - Potential study bias: Study time period and sample may introduce bias substantially affecting/understating results – Operator problems in post months (−1)	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 1; - Face validity: Monthly error count without test volume is not error rate outcome (−1)	Results/findings (3 pts maximum): 0; - Sample sufficiency: Number of tests not reported (−2); - Appropriateness of statistical analysis: Does not provide data to allow/verify calculation of effect size rate (sample size not reported) (−1)
Rao, AC; Burke, DA; and Dighe, AS [1] - 2005 - Point of Care [1] Massachusetts General Hospital - Funding: Self-financed	- Design: Before-after - Facility/Setting: Massachusetts General, Boston, MA; 900-beds; largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School and hospital- based research program - Time Period: No dates reported; 1 month pilot test of barcoding with 2 months of comparator (1 Pretest and 1 Post test) - Sample: 35 inpatients included in pilot test of bar coding only - 462 total glucometry tests: - Pre: 170 (no barcoding) - Pilot: 158 (barcoding) - Post: 134 (no barcoding) - Comparator: Usual Care - POC device with keypad for manual patient ID data entry - Study Bias: Pilot test limited sample	- Description: POCT Barcoding 2D bar code for patient wristbands; only the medical record number included in the ID bar code which is a unique identifier for each patient. - Duration: 1 month (pilot test only) - Training: Teach nurses, operations coordinators, operations assistants on how to print wristbands and troubleshoot. - Staff/Other Resources: Nurses - Cost: Not reported	- Desription: Patient ID error rate - % errors in Medical Record Number (MRN) for glucometry tests - Recording method: Verification of MRN; not described	- Pretest-Posttest - Findings/Effect Size: No Barcoding: 1.32% (4/304)* Barcoding Pilot test: 0% (0/158) *( Pretest and Posttest combined: Pretest: 1.2% (2/170); Posttest: 1.5% ( 2/134)) Absolute decrease: 1.3% Relative decrease: 100.0% ➢ OR = 4.75 (CI: 0.25 – 88.73) (Results for 2 comparator periods pooled) - Stat Significance/ Tests: Difference in error rates was statistically significant by Chi- squared analysis (P<0.005). - Results/Conclusions Biases: Study period is short, 1 month; relatively small sample sizes.
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 7 (Fair) Effect Size Magnitude Rating: Moderate (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 2; Potential study bias: The study design, time period and sample selection methods may introduce study bias substantially affecting results – limited to 35 inpatients (−1)	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 1; - Recording method not described (-1)	Results/findings (3 pts maximum): 2; - Sample sufficiency: Measurement period and sample size may be too small/insufficient to allow a robust estimate of the impact of a practice (-1)