Cited by 41Forensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlEmergency and Acute Care Studies

Implementation of Point-of-Care Rapid Urine Testing for Drugs of Abuse in the Emergency Department of an Academic Medical Center: Impact on Test Utilization and ED Length of Stay

Lewandrowski, Kent, Flood, James, Finn, Christine, Tannous, Bakhos, Farris, Alton B., Benzerx, Theodore I., Lee-Lewandrowski, Elizabeth·2008·American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Abstract

We evaluated the impact of implementing a point-of-care (POC) rapid urine test panel for drugs of abuse on turnaround time (TAT), emergency department length of stay (LOS), and laboratory test utilization patterns. The mean TAT from sample collection to results reporting decreased by 69.4%, from 108 to 33 minutes, the mean LOS from 11.1 to 8.1 hours (27% P < .0001), and the median LOS from 8.0 to 7.0 hours (13% P = .0017). A method crossover between the POC and central laboratory methods revealed differences in sensitivity and specificity. Overall, there was no clear preference for either method. Differences in performance for individual drug classes were reconciled by providing interpretive comments with POC results. Following implementation, use of urine testing for drugs of abuse increased by 30%, which was offset by fewer requests for extended toxicology testing in the central laboratory and more selective ordering of toxicology tests not on the POC panel (alcohols and analgesics). The implementation of a POC urine test panel for drugs of abuse decreased LOS and TAT and essentially replaced central laboratory testing for drugs of abuse. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between POC and central laboratory results require provision of interpretive comments with results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1309/59681r72jdtccd2b

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 16 · Cited by 41

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Landro L. Emergency rooms hope new technology will ease their trauma. Wall Street Journal. July 13, 2001:B1.
  2. Kendall J, Reeves B, Clancy M. Point-of-care testing: randomized controlled trial of clinical outcome. BMJ. 1998;316:1052-1057.

Authors
Lewandrowski, K., Flood, J., Finn, C., Tannous, B., Farris, A. B., Benzerx, T. I., & Lee-Lewandrowski, E.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Published
2008-05
Volume
129
Issue
5
Pages
796-801
ISSN
  • 0002-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7722
OpenAlex
W2032950944
Cited by
41
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
point-of-care testing, drugs of abuse, emergency department, turnaround time, length of hospital stay, laboratory test utilization, method comparison, sensitivity and specificity, test ordering patterns
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Emergency Medical Services, Humans, Length of Stay, Sensitivity and Specificity, Illicit Drugs, Time, Urinalysis, Point-of-Care Systems, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review