• Kent Lewandrowski, James Flood, Christine Finn, Bakhos Tannous, Alton B Farris, Theodore I Benzer, and Elizabeth Lee-Lewandrowski.
• Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
• Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2008 May 1;129(5):796-801.

AbstractWe 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.

16 keywords...

hide…