CIMIT ModelClinical ImpactCommunity: CoLabContact Us
search
POCTRN in Primary Care Awards

Quick Facts

Objective: Annual national competition to develop point-of-care technologies to address unmet needs in primary care. Of particular interest are solutions for rapid office-based testing that would enable early disease detection and timely intervention eliminating unnecessary steps and re-work and technologies that would enable self-testing and self-monitoring in the home for patient self-management.

Eligibility: Open to academic, engineering, research and development laboratories in the United States. Qualified small businesses may also apply. We encourage collaboration with investigators within the CIMIT consortium.

Status: Six grants of $100,000-$200,000 (direct costs) were awarded in 2012; Four grants of $100,000 were awarded in 2013. Details and specific dates for the 2014 competition are described below.

2014 Application process:

POCTRC Award applications are solicited and evaluated in two stages. Applicants may submit pre-proposals which will undergo review. A subset of the applicants who submitted pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals.

Documents for the pre-proposal phase include:

  1. How to apply for a pre-proposal
  2. Review criteria
  3. FAQ’s

Documents for the full proposal phase include:

  1. Full Proposal Application Guidelines
  2. Full Proposal Application Narrative
  3. Review Criteria
  4. POCTN Center in Primary Care Budget Form
  5. Compliance Form
  6. {Instructions for Submitting Full Proposals} in CoLab
TIMELINE
February 18, 2014 Pre-proposal Submission Site Will Open
March 31, 2014 Deadline for Pre-proposals Submissions
April 21, 2014 Full Proposals Invited
June 2, 2014 Deadline for Full Proposals
October 2013 Award Finalists Notified

To view a description of unmet needs in primary care, read the answers to frequently asked questions, and see a list of previous awardees, click on the corresponding tab below. For further questions and assistance, please email Steve Schachter, MD, at CIMITGrants@partners.org.

  • Unmet Needs
  • FAQs
  • Primary Care
  • Past Awardees

UNMET NEEDS IN PRIMARY CARE

As the number of primary care providers diminishes and the need for primary care increases, the fundamental unmet need is to increase the ability of providers to care for more patients without decreasing the quality of care given and without unduly burdening the providers, patients or their families.

In general, two POC technology-enabled pathways to increase primary care capacity are:

  • To introduce point-of-care technologies eliminating unnecessary steps and re-work to increase the efficiency of operations.
  • To offload selected testing and self-monitoring capabilities to the home setting for patient self-management. 

On an annual basis, in collaboration with the MGH Stoeckle Center for Primary Care Innovation, under the leadership of Susan Edgman-Levitan, unmet clinical needs in primary care where technology-enabled solutions could be of benefit will be defined and prioritized.

For the 2014 national call for proposals, breakthrough, disruptive innovations that transform clinic efficiency, workflow or patient /provider experience are solicited. In the future, clinical test results will be available at the time of the in-office or virtual primary care visit. Point-of-care testing from drops of blood or other body fluids or from non-invasive, non-chemical means will support clinical decision-making without testing delays or the inconvenience of off-site laboratory testing, and follow-up.

The focus of this solicitation is to develop POCTs for

  • The most commonly used tests in primary care:
  • Where results can be available within 20 minutes at the time of the visit
  • Without the need for venipuncture

Priority will be given to micro-volume chemistry tests that are not currently available, such as:

  • Complete blood count with differential
  • Chemistry panels (esp. potassium)
  • Cardiac biomarkers; BNP/NT-proBNP

Microfluidic and nanotechnology platforms that are capable of providing a broad array of test results are welcomed. Nonchemical sampling techniques such as optical or sonic methods or other physical modalities that expand the capabilities of primary care practices to deliver care will be considered.

To accelerate clinical adoption of POCT in the primary care environment and minimize potential barriers to acceptance, point-of-care technologies should address Design Requirements for POCTs in Primary Care.

Bookmark and Share

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

  1. Who retains the rights to any intellectual property generated by a proposal?
  2. Should I disclose any unprotected proprietary information in the submission?
  3. Who can apply for Point of Care Technology Research Center in Primary Care grants?
  4. Are international laboratories outside of the United States eligible to participate?
  5. When are applications due?
  6. How much funding is available? Do you give multi-year Grants?
  7. Where do I submit my pre-proposal?
  8. When will I be notified if my Pre-proposal has been selected to submit a Full Proposal?
  9. My pre-proposal was accepted and I have been invited to submit a full proposal. Now what?
  10. Where and how do I submit my full proposal?
  11. Who reviews the applications?
  12. Is there anything "special" that applicants should know?
  13. Who should I list as collaborators?
  14. I am writing a pre-proposal. May I include several references?
  15. Should I submit copies of relevant publications?
  16. Will you accept a video showing how my system works?
  17. What is an institutional sign off page?
  18. Are there any budget restrictions or limitations?
  19. Are indirect costs provided?
  20. When would I receive my funding?
  21. What are my reporting responsibilities if I receive an award?
  22. Does the POCTRC-PC support software development?
  23. Does the POCTRC-PC support early stage research?
  24. What are the general design characteristics for point of care technologies in primary care?
  1. Who retains the rights to any intellectual property generated by a proposal? Management of intellectual property will be determined by the institutional policies of the entity responsible for the proposal.
  2. Should I disclose any unprotected proprietary information in the submission? Protecting proprietary information is the responsibility of the applicant and the applicant institution. Consistent with NIH policy, applicants are discouraged from submitting information considered proprietary unless it is deemed essential for proper evaluation of the application. However, when the application contains information that constitutes trade secrets, or information that is commercial or financial, or information that is confidential or privileged, identify the pages in the application that contain this information by marking those paragraphs or lines with an asterisk (*) at the beginning of the paragraph. Indicate at the beginning of the Research Plan which pages contain asterisks and a note stating: "The following sections marked with an asterisk contain proprietary/privileged information that [name of applicant] requests not be released to persons outside the Government, except for purposes of review and evaluation." When information in the application constitutes trade secrets or information that is commercial or financial, or information that is confidential or privileged, it is furnished to the Government in confidence with the understanding that the information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation of this application. If a grant is awarded as a result of or in connection with the submission of this application, the Government shall have the right to use or disclose the information to the extent authorized by law.
  3. Who can apply for Point of Care Technology Research Center in Primary Care grants? In order to be eligible for the Innovation Award, proposals must include written institutional approval from an academic institution, medical center, or non-profit institution with 501c(3) status within the United States. Qualified small business entities may also apply. A small business has fewer than 500 employees and qualifies as a small business concern under 13CFR Part 121. Eligible Principal Investigators must hold a faculty appointment at an institution of higher education or medical center in the United States.
  4. Are international laboratories outside of the United States eligible to participate? Unfortunately, the POCTRN awards are only currently available for laboratories in the United States.
  5. When are applications due?
    Pre-proposals are due by 11:59pm EST Monday, March 31, 2014.
    Full proposals are due by 11:59pm EST Monday, June 2, 2014.
  6. How much funding is available? Do you give multi-year Grants? Applicants may request up to $100,000 direct cost per project. Indirect costs are provided at the performance sites’ Federally-negotiated rates up to 74%. Currently, only one year applications are accepted.
  7. Where do I submit my pre-proposal? All pre-proposal information must be submitted through the on-line submission system at https://cimitconnect.induct.no .
  8. When will I be notified if my Pre-proposal has been selected to submit a Full Proposal? All Pre-proposal applicants will be notified on or before Monday, April 21, 2014 as to whether or not they have been selected to advance to the Full Proposals phase.
  9. My pre-proposal was accepted and I have been invited to submit a full proposal. Now what? If you are invited to submit a full proposal, it must be submitted through the on-line submission system no later than 11:59pm EST Monday, June 2, 2014. Follow the step-by-step instructions on the web-based submission site. The files do not need to be loaded all at once. The PI may log on as many times as he or she wishes until the deadline.
  10. Where and how do I submit my full proposal? All full proposal information must be submitted through the CIMIT proposal submission system at https://cimitconnect.induct.no . Instructions will be provided on the website. No material can be submitted directly to CIMIT staff.
  11. Who reviews the applications? The Review Panels are made up of practicing clinical specialists, engineers and scientists with broad experience in medical innovation. Full proposal applicants can suggest reviewers, though no assurance is given that suggested reviewers will be utilized. Applicants can also provide names of potential reviewers who they would prefer not be used, and every effort will be made to accommodate these requests. These requests should be included in a letter uploaded with the other supporting documents.
  12. Is there anything "special" that applicants should know? Key elements of a strong application are collaboration and innovation. Work between investigators in different institutions, and among clinicians, scientists and engineers who might not normally work together is encouraged. For all proposals, the review committee requires that investigators collaborate closely with primary care clinicians and product development experts in the development of the proposal and in the conduct of the work. The input of these collaborators must be clearly reflected throughout the application. The Team section of your proposal should make this explicit.
  13. Who should I list as collaborators? List only individuals who are considered key personnel or significant contributors to the work that will be performed, and who have agreed to their role. Avoid honorific collaborations. For all proposals, the review committee requires that investigators collaborate closely with primary care clinicians and product development experts in the development of the proposal and the conduct of the work. The input of these collaborators must be clearly reflected throughout the application.
  14. I am writing a pre-proposal. May I include several references? You can include as many references as you would like, but they must be included in the two-page limit.
  15. Should I submit copies of relevant publications? Please do not submit copies of relevant publications. Standard citation of publications is acceptable.
  16. Will you accept a video showing how my system works? Videos will not be accepted.
  17. What is an institutional sign off page? It is the official sheet from your research administration office indicating that your full proposal is approved by your institution. Be sure to ask your research administration office how much lead time they need to process this form in the event you are invited to submit a full proposal so that you can submit all your documents before the deadline. Signature from an authorized business official must be received prior to the proposal deadline.
  18. Are there any budget restrictions or limitations? Equipment must be well justified to the purpose and exclusive need of the project. Alterations and renovations will not be supported.
  19. Are indirect costs provided? Indirect costs will be provided at your institution’s Federally-negotiated rate up to 74%. If your institution does not have a Federally-negotiated rate, indirect costs may be provided up to 25% provided that the costs are well documented in your budget justification.
  20. When would I receive my funding? The timeliness of your revisions to the administrative materials, should any be needed, and any necessary protocol approvals, will affect when you receive your award, which would not be sooner than November 1, 2013. If your work involves human subjects, data or tissue derived, or live animals, the necessary IRB and IACUC approvals must be received by CIMIT prior to the activation of your award. In addition, Federal funds provide the support for 2013 awards and must be received by CIMIT prior to the release of your award.
  21. What are my reporting responsibilities if I receive an award? An annual report is required to be submitted by investigators in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award. Quarterly reports will be required to facilitate progress and integration with the overall POCTRC-PC program.
  22. Does the POCTRC-PC support software development? POCTRC-PC reviewers will distinguish between routine software engineering (data processing, interfacing, simple signal processing), and research software in which new algorithmic approaches are required to solve a clinical problem. Like any other task, software engineering may be supported when it is necessary to meet project objectives. Research software projects must be approached in the context of a clinical purpose or care pathway, and the project must involve direct collaboration with a physician. The POCTRCPC does not support classic Information Technology projects (electronic patient record, data mining for decision support, etc.) because institutions and industry groups are already investing significant resources in these areas.
  23. Does the POCTRC-PC support early stage research? Projects should be viable candidates for commercial development within1-2 years at the end of the award period, therefore applications to support early stage research are not encouraged.
  24. What are the general design characteristics for point of care technologies in primary care? The general design features for an ideal POCT device for use in a primary care setting are described below. Although device design should incorporate as many of these features as possible, it is recognized that technology restraints may preclude incorporation of some of these features.
    • Result Availability: Results must be available during the office visit (typically 10-20 minute result availability) so that decisions can be made in a timely fashion based on the test results.
    • Ease-of-Use: Ease-of-use is essential to successful implementation of POCT test devices. In the case of instrumented devices the user interface with the device should be designed to ensure regulatory compliance under the clinical laboratory improvement amendment (CLIA-88) with minimal requirements for intervention by the operator. Results readout must not be subjective but easy to read using color change readout, digital or graphic formats.
    • Reducing Operator Errors: The device should have built in software safeguards to ensure proper operation and reduce common errors such as lock-out of untrained operators, lock-out for failed quality control (or failure to perform quality control) and lock-out of expired reagents.
    • Sample Types: Samples that do not require a trained phlebotomist should be used such as capillary finger-stick whole blood or saliva.
    • Storage of Consumables: All consumables including reagents, calibrators and quality control materials should be able to be stored at room temperature. The shelf life should be minimally 6 months to 1 year.
    • Device Footprint: POCT devices should be designed to have as small a footprint as possible. Small bench top or handheld devices are optimal.
    • Information Connectivity: All instrumented POCT devices should be capable of being interfaced to the electronic medical record system. The ability to transmit data using a bidirectional wireless interface is most optimal.
    • Analytic Performance: As a general rule, the point of care devices should perform equally to central laboratory instruments with regard to analytical accuracy, reportable range and imprecision. Analytical time should be kept to a minimum (less than 5 minutes for common chemistry analytes and less than 15 minutes for immunoassays).

Bookmark and Share

 

  1. What is primary care?
  2. Why is primary care important?
  3. Why is Primary Care in crisis?
  4. How are Primary Care Practices organized?
  5. What is a Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)?
  6. What does “Patient-centered” mean?
  7. How do primary care practices become recognized as Patient Centered Medical Homes?
  8. What is Point-of-Care (POC) Technology?
  9. What are some examples of Point-of-Care Technologies in primary care?
  10. How can POCT positively impact the primary care crisis?
  11. What makes the case for using POCT in primary care?
  12. What are the challenges of developing POCT for primary care?
  13. What are the benefits of POCT in the primary care setting?
  14. What is the downside of not using POCT?
  15. Using a common condition, what is the difference in treatment when a POCT is available and when it is not available (example: rapid strep test)?
  16. What are some examples of clinical scenarios that lead to POC testing in Primary Care?
  17. Additional Resources
  18. References
  1. What is primary care?

    Primary care is the foundation of our health care system.

    The Institute of Medicine provided this definition in 1996: "Primary care is the provision of integrated, accessible health care services by clinicians who are accountable for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs, developing a sustained partnership with patients, and practicing in the context of family and community."

    Primary care providers serve as the first point of contact for patients regarding preventive care, for minor illness or injury and, increasingly, for serious chronic diseases and complex co-morbidities. They initiate referrals to specialists and coordinate care across multiple specialties.

    Primary care professionals provide health promotion, disease prevention, health maintenance, counseling, patient education, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic illnesses in a variety of health care settings including office, inpatient, critical care, long-term care, home care, day care, senior center, and clinic.

    Patients and families can choose a family physician, general internist, pediatrician, or medicine-pediatrics doctor to be their primary care physician. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants work closely with these physicians to also deliver primary care. Primary care is the patient’s entry into the health care system and the medical “home” for ongoing, personalized care.

    Some people think that primary care physicians only handle simple things: making sure kids get their vaccinations, treating sore throats and bladder infections, and doing school and annual physicals. However, the truth is quite different: primary care physicians need a vast amount of medical knowledge because they care for patients with hundreds of different problems including high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, liver disease, back pain, memory loss, developmental and behavioral problems, depression, heart disease, asthma, obesity, and more.

    Primary care physicians also coordinate the care of their patients throughout the confusing health care system; for example, arranging for patients to get an MRI, choosing the right specialists, helping the elderly find their way through the pharmacy maze of Medicare Part D, and checking up on home nursing services. In addition, primary care physicians are a trusted source of information, helping their patients choose the best options and manage conflicting recommendations from specialists and other physicians.

  2. Why is primary care important?

    It has repeatedly been demonstrated that health systems built on a strong primary care foundation are associated with improved quality, decreased mortality, and reduced costs (Shi 2003; Starfield 2005; Lewin 2008; Starfield 2005). Patients who are connected to a primary care provider receive more guideline-consistent, high-quality, care than those who are not (Atlas 2009).

    Primary care reduces the out-of-control growth of health care spending. When more primary care physicians, per person, are practicing in a community, hospitalization rates are lower (Parchman 1994). In addition, states with more primary care physicians who care for Medicare patients have lower Medicare costs and higher quality of care; states with fewer of those primary care physicians have higher costs and lower quality (Baicker 2004).

    Primary care improves the quality of care for people with many different illnesses. Children and adults with primary care physicians are more likely to receive recommended preventive services, to have better management of chronic illnesses, and to be satisfied with their care (Bindman 1996; Safran 1998; Stewart 1997). States with more primary care physicians per capita have lower total mortality rates, lower heart disease and cancer mortality rates, and higher life expectancy at birth compared with states having fewer primary care physicians (adjusting for other factors such as age and per capita income (Starfield 1998).

    Unfortunately, leveraging these clear population and systemic benefits of a strong primary care foundation is out of reach because primary care in the United States today is in a state of crisis (Bodenheimer 2009).

  3. Why is Primary Care in crisis?
  4. There are very real threats to primary care’s survival. In 2006, the American College of Physicians, an organization representing both primary care physicians and specialists, warned that, “Primary care, the backbone of the nation’s health care system, is at grave risk of collapse….” (American College of Physicians 2006).

    Just as the demand for care is increasing with an aging population (the number of Americans over 65 will double by 2030), the pool of primary care providers is shrinking (Thorpe 2006a; Thorpe 2006b). Few medical students choose primary care and many older primary care physicians are retiring early (Lipner 2006). In fact, from 1997 to 2005, the number of US medical school graduates entering family medicine residencies dropped by 50 percent (Pugno 2005). The combination of lower incomes and a stressful work-life discourages medical students and young physicians from choosing primary care careers. These trends are fueling projections of a primary care shortage of 40,000 by 2020 (RWJ 2011), and up to 65,000 by more recent estimates that incorporate the impact of the Affordable Care Act. This imbalance in supply and demand constrains primary care capacity, limiting access and fragmenting care as patients and families seek out other points of entry, often more expensive and less interconnected (such as emergency departments), into the health care system.

    Forty-two percent of primary care physicians report not having enough time to spend with their patients (Center for Studying Health System Change). That frustration is made worse by a payment system that is unfair to primary care. For example, a specialist spending 30 minutes performing a surgical procedure, a diagnostic test like a colonoscopy, or an imaging study like an MRI, is often paid three times as much as a 30-minute primary care visit with a complicated patient who has diabetes, heart failure, headache, and high cholesterol (Bodenheimer 2006).

    Estimates suggest that patients receive no more than 50% of recommended acute, chronic, and preventive care (Asch 2006). In addition, 60 million Americans, nearly one in five, lack adequate access to any primary care in their communities (National 2009).

  5. How are Primary Care Practices organized?

    Primary care practices tend to be very busy places that are challenged to meet the needs of a wide variety of patients, who present with one or more diagnoses (from a seemingly unlimited list), and who require care from across the spectrum of services ⎯from acute to chronic to preventive.

    To meet patient demand, primary care is increasingly practiced by teams of clinical and non-clinical staff. In addition to the primary care physician and one or more nurses, teams may include a medical assistant, behavioral health practitioner, health coach, and others. This enables team members to work at the top of their licenses, and takes away tasks from physicians that others can perform. These tasks include checking vitals, but also extend to care for other issues, including chronic disease follow-up, and matters that non-physician team members can safely handle (Bodenheimer 2007).

    Read more about building teams on the California HealthCare Foundation website: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2007/07/building-teams-in-primary-care-lessons-from-15-case-studies#ixzz2setdLrgq

    For examples of how primary care practices are organized, please visit The Commonwealth Fund link provided below. The Commonwealth Fund sponsored case studies of 12 high-performing, patient-centered primary care practices in 2008. Practices were selected for study on the basis of their exceptional patient experience survey scores across multiple domains. The purpose of the case studies was to document models of high-quality, patient-centered care, and to extract lessons regarding the organizational factors and specific processes used by these practices to achieve favorable patient experiences.

    Read more about these case studies on the Commonwealth Fund website:

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Innovations/Case-Studies/2008/Aug/Grant-Community-Clinic--Case-Studies-of-Patient--and-Family-Centered-Primary-Care-Practices.aspx (additional cases listed in left margin on Commonwealth site)

  6. What is a Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)?

    Here are two definitions of PCMH:

    • Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is a movement to effectively and significantly improve health care for Americans while increasing satisfaction for family physicians and their practice team. [TransforMED]
    • The Patient-Centered Medical Home is an approach to providing comprehensive primary care to adults, youth and children. PCMH is a health care setting that facilitates partnerships between individual patients and their personal physicians, and when appropriate, the patient’s family. Care is facilitated by registries, information technology, health information exchange, and other means to assure that patients get the indicated care when and where they need and want it, in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. [American Academy of Family Physicians]

    PCMH video:
    http://www.emmisolutions.com/medicalhome/transformed/

    PCMH patient brochure:
    http://www.pcpcc.org/guide/consumer-education-english-spanish

  7. What does “Patient-centered” mean?

    “Patient-centered” is a way of saying that the patient is the most important person in the health care system.

  8. How do primary care practices become recognized as Patient Centered Medical Homes?

    The National Committee for Quality Assurance recognizes practices functioning as medical homes through use of systematic, patient-centered, and coordinated care management processes. These practices are evaluated on whether or not they meet a series of Standards (the first of which is to “Enhance Access and Continuity”). It is in this emerging paradigm of primary care that point-of-care diagnostics can play an important role.

  9. What is Point-of-Care (POC) Technology?

    Imagine a primary care practice where rapid testing would eliminate unnecessary steps and re-work in the office, or where selected testing and self-monitoring capabilities would be available in the home for patient self-management.

    Point-of-care (POC) technology is defined as medical testing at or near the site of patient care (office or home). Such technologies comprise inexpensive, convenient, and user-friendly medical devices and information-sharing tools that deliver trusted information to the clinician in real-time. This timeliness increases the likelihood that patient, physician, and care team can make immediate clinical management decisions, thus improving quality and patient safety.

  10. What are some examples of Point-of-Care Technologies in primary care?

    A few examples of POC technologies currently in wide use are rapid strep tests, blood glucose monitoring, urine testing for pregnancy, and rapid flu testing.

    Although numerous point-of-care technologies exist, very few are designed to address the unique needs and challenges of a primary care setting.

  11. How can POCT positively impact the primary care crisis?

    Emerging solutions to this crisis in the US are centered on expanding the capacity of primary care clinicians and practices to care for complex patients across the continuum of health and disease. The creation of activated, coordinated teams of providers with integrated POC testing that proactively re-orient care around the needs of the patient through the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model are critical (Bitton 2010).

  12. What makes the case for using POCT in primary care?

    The introduction of point-of-care technologies into primary care would increase the capacity of practices to care for more patients by eliminating inefficient testing turnaround delays and the need for post-visit communication of results and recommendations to patients, freeing up clinical time.

    It is estimated that 55% of a primary care physician’s day is spent outside of the examination room, primarily focused on follow-up and documentation of care for patients not physically present (Gottschalk, 2005). This administrative rework is not only time-consuming, but discontinuous care jeopardizes patient outcomes in that the start of effective therapy may be delayed or, even worse, abnormal results may not be communicated back to the primary care physician from the laboratory or to the patient by the PCP resulting in a serious “failure to diagnose” because of lack of follow-up.

  13. What are the challenges of developing POCT for primary care?

    Point-of-care diagnostic technologies are neither new nor unique. There is a substantial POC testing literature and a number of commercially available devices and systems (Kalorama 2011: Cunningham 2011; Price 2010). However, although there are a number of point-of-care diagnostics for acute care, the list is far shorter for primary care due to challenges unique to this setting, such as the expense associated with lower test volumes, training needs, higher quality control costs and associated regulatory burden, the need for decision support to interpret test results and rigorous requirements for operational reliability.

  14. What are the benefits of POCT in the primary care setting?

    The average number of patients cared for by a single primary care physician is 2500 (Ostbye 2005); on a given day, a physician may see 15-25 patients. It is within this context that the true burden of inefficient testing systems and the potential value of POC diagnostic testing can be understood.

    Time saved by employing POCT could be spent in direct patient care, thereby increasing capacity and improving access. Communication hand-offs and delays would also be reduced, thus improving patient safety and continuity of care.

  15. What is the downside of not using POCT?

    In the absence of POCT, the downside for physicians is time lost in communicating with the laboratory and the family that could have been spent seeing other patients and the inability to ensure appropriate treatment at the time of the patient visit.

    The downside for patients is the inconvenience in additional visits to central labs for testing prior to or after an appointment, delays in diagnosis and, in the case of infection, the potential for over-prescribing antibiotics resulting in the danger of antibiotic resistance.

  16. Using a common condition, what is the difference in treatment when a POCT is available and when it is not available (example: rapid strep test)?

    The rapid strep test in pediatric offices benefits nearly every child under the age of six who is exposed to streptococcus. Since infection by group A streptococcus presents with non-specific symptoms of acute pharyngitis, it is important to differentiate strep infection from other causes (Lewandrowski, 2001).

    If POCT testing confirms strep to be present, a physician writes an antibiotic prescription and a full course of treatment begins immediately.

    However, if POCT is not available, the scenario is very different – time-consuming, expensive, with delayed results, and not patient-centered. 1) A throat culture is taken. 2) Culture is sent to the lab. 3) A 3-day course of antibiotic treatment may be initiated. 4) A prescription is given for the full course of treatment. 5) When lab results are ready, the physician receives the results and contacts the parent/ guardian. 6) If test results are negative, (the unneeded) antibiotic treatment ends. If results are positive, the prescription is filled for the full course of treatment.

    The multi-step scenario described above (for testing without a POC diagnostic test) is repeated time and again in primary care offices, not just for infectious diseases, but for other acute and chronic illnesses dependent upon test results for reliable clinical decision-making.

  17. What are some examples of clinical scenarios that lead to POC testing in Primary Care?

    The examples below illustrate the breadth and complexity of clinical scenarios encountered in primary care.

    Example 1: Mrs. Gonzalez is an 80-year-old woman who has many active co-morbid illnesses that include diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and an old myocardial infarction, which has left her with a left bundle branch block and Parkinson's disease. She comes in to clinic today with her daughter, because her daughter notes that she has been feeling lightheaded lately and been complaining of palpitations. On history, her daughter notes that her mother seems to have difficulty keeping track of her medications. Among her medications, she takes an oral hypoglycemic, an HMG CoA reductase inhibitor, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a diuretic, and L-dopa. An ECG is performed in the office. However, due to her left bundle branch block, it is uninterpretable except for rate.
    Desirable POCTs: potassium, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, CBC, echocardiogram, heart loop monitor, troponins

    Example 2: Mr. Lee is a 20-year-old college student who is on his school's varsity basketball team. Over the last month, several of his teammates have developed rashes. He comes in today for evaluation of his rash. When he is examined, the rash appears to be scattered red bumps of varying sizes. Several have whitish centers; many are excoriated (ie, abraded).
    Desirable POCTs: CBC, rapid scabies, MRSA, rapid fungus

    Example 3: Mrs. Green is a 40-year-old woman who comes in to clinic with worsening abdominal pain both right and left lower quadrants, low-grade fever and diarrhea over the last five days. She returns recently from a business trip in Southeast Asia. She had been placed on prophylactic antibiotics and anti-malarial medications prior to travel. She was up to date on all her vaccinations. She has a family history of gallstone disease, as well as inflammatory bowel disease.
    Desirable POCTs: CBC; electrolytes; rapid stool test; rapid ova and parasites; rapid c-diff; imaging of descending colon, appendix, gall bladder

  18. Additional Resources

    American Academy of Family Physicians: www.aafp.org

    Commonwealth Fund: www.commonwealthfund.org

    Stoeckle Center for Primary Care Innovation at Massachusetts General Hospital: www.massgeneral.org/stoecklecenter

    National Committee for Quality Assurance: www.ncqa.org

    Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative: www.pcpcc.org

    TransforMED: https://www.transformed.com

  19. References

    American College of Physicians. The Impending Collapse of Primary Care Medicine and its Implications for the State of the Nation’s Health. Washington DC: January 30, 2006.

    Asch S et al. Who is at Greatest Risk for Receiving Poor-Quality Health Care? New England Journal of Medicine. 2006; 354:11.

    Atlas SJ, Grant RW, Ferris TG, Chang Y, Barry MJ. Patient-physician connectedness and quality of primary care. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;150(5):325-335.

    Baicker K, Chandra A. Medicare spending, the physician workforce, and beneficiaries’ quality of care. Health Affairs Web Exclusive, April 7, 2004;W4-184-197.

    Bindman AB, Grumbach K, Osmond D, et al. Primary care and receipt of preventive services. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:269-276.

    Bodenheimer T. Primary care – Will it survive? N Engl J Med 2006;355:861-864.

    Bodenheimer T. Building Teams in Primary Care: Lessons from 15 Case Studies. Prepared for California HealthCare Foundation, 2007. http://www.chcf.org/publications/2007/07/building-teams-in-primary-care-lessons-from-15-case-studies

    Bodenheimer T, Grumbach K, Berenson RA. A lifeline for primary care. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 360(26):2693-2696.

    Bitton A et al. A Nationwide Survey of Patient Centered Medical Home Demonstration Projects. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2010; 25(6):584-92.

    CDC. Office-Related Antibiotic Prescribing for Persons Aged <= 14 Years. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly. September 2, 2011; 60(34);1153-1156

    Center for Studying Health System Change Physician Survey. http://CTSonline.s-3.com/psurvey.asp

    Cunningham W. Chairman of the Point-of-Care Forum, British In-Vitro Diagnostics Association. 2011

    http://www.bivda.co.uk/AreasofInterest/Laboratory/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/125/Default.aspx accessed 9/15/2011.

    Gottschalk A, Flocke SA. Time Spent in Face-to-Face Patient Care and Work Outside the Examination Room. Annals of Family Medicine. 2005; 3(6): 488–493.

    Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Zubkoff M, et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA. 1992; 267(12):1624-1630.

    Junker R, Schlebusch H, Luppa PB. Point-of-Care Testing in Hospitals and Primary Care. Deutsches Arzteblatt International. 2010; 107 (33): 561-7.

    Kaiser Family Foundation, Background Brief on the shortage of Primary Care physicians (OECD Health Data 2009. How Does the United States Compare? 2009; http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/Primary-Care-Shortage/Background-Brief.aspxhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf) accessed 8/25/2011.

    Kalorama Information. The Global Market for Medical Devices, 2nd Edition. April 1, 2011.

    Lee-Lewandrowski E et al. Implementation of a Rapid Whole Blood E-Dimer Test in the Emergency Departmetn of an Urban Academic Medical Center. American Journal of Clinical Patholology. 2009; 132: 1-6.

    Lewandrowski K et al. Implementation of a Point-of-Care Rapid Urine Testing for Drugs of Abuse in the Emergency Department of an Academic Medical Center. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2008; 129: 796-801.

    Lewandrowski K (ed.). Point-of-Care Testing. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company. 2001; 21 (2).

    Lewin S, Lavis JN, Oxman AD, et al. Supporting the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health-care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Lancet. 2008; 372(9642):928-939.

    Lipner RS, Bylsma WH, Arnold GK, Fortna GS, Tooker J, Cassel CK. Who is maintaining certification in internal medicine--and why? A national survey 10 years after initial certification. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006; 144(1):29-36.

    Murray CJ, Frenk J. Ranking 37th--measuring the performance of the U.S. health care system. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 362(2):98-99.

    OECD Health Data 2009. How Does the United States Compare? 2009; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf. accessed 9/1/2011.

    Parchman ML, Culler S. Primary care physicians and avoidable hospitalizations. J Fam Pract 1994;39:123-128.

    Price CP, Kricka LJ. Improving Healthcare Accessibility through Point-of-Care Technologies. Clinical Chemistry. 2007; 53 (9):1665-1675.

    Pugno PA, Schmittling GT, Fetter GT, et al. Results of the 2005 national resident matching program: Family medicine. Fam Med. 2005;37:555-564.

    Reid PP, Compton WD, Grossman JH, Fanjiang G. National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine: Building a Better Delivery System: A New Engineering/Health Care Partnership. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. 2001.

    Robert Wood Johnson, AAFP Projects PCP Shortage Could Reach 40,000 By 2020, http://www.rwjf.org/humancapital/digest.jsp?id=21508, accessed 8/18/2011.

    Safran DG, Taira GA, Rogers WH, et al. Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. J Fam Pract 1998;47:213-220.

    Shi L, Macinko J, Starfield B, Wulu J, Regan J, Politzer R. The relationship between primary care, income inequality, and mortality in US States, 1980-1995. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice. 2003; 16(5):412-422.

    Starfield B. Primary care: Balancing health needs, services, and technology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

    Starfield B, Shi L, Grover A, Macinko J. The effects of specialist supply on populations' health: assessing the evidence. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2005; Suppl Web Exclusives:W5-97-W95-107.

    Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Quarterly. 2005; 83(3):457-502.

    Stewart AL, Grumbach K, Osmond DH, et al. Primary care and patient perceptions of access to care. J Fam Pract 1997;44:177-185.

    Thorpe K et al; The Rise in Spending Among Medicare Beneficiaries: The Role of Chronic Disease Prevalence and Changes in Treatment Intensity. Health Affairs. 2006; w378–w388.

PAST AWARDEES

2013 Awardees

Linda Wang
Massachusetts General Hospital
Improving efficiency of diagnosis of pneumonia with point of care thermal imaging

George Whitesides
Harvard University
A universal electrochemical reader for the diagnosis and management of chronic kidney disease

Stephen Boppart
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Differentiation of bacterial vs. viral otitis media using raman spectroscopy in primary care

Elizabeth Mullen
Dana Farber Cancer Institute/Boston Children’s Hospital
The “Epicell” – an accessible auto-injector with communication capabilities

2012 Awardees

Utkan Demirci
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Bio-Acoustic MEMS in Medicine Laboratory
Rapid Disposable Microchip for Complete Blood Count

Utkan Demirci
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Bio-Acoustic MEMS in Medicine Laboratory
Microchip for Multiple Infectious Agents Testing

Tayyaba Hasan
Massachusetts General Hospital, Wellman Laboratory of Photomedicine
Rapid Fluorescence-based Determination of Antibiotic Susceptibility

Seemantini Nadkarni
Massachusetts General Hospital, Wellman Laboratory of Photomedicine
Optical-based Blood Coagulation Profiling Device

Gary Tearney
Massachusetts General Hospital, Wellman Laboratory of Photomedicine
Optical Device for Otitis Media Diagnosis

Selim Unlu
Boston University, Optical Characterization and Nanophotonics Laboratory
Microchip for Label-free Allergen Test at the PoC

Bookmark and Share

 

CONTACT INFORMATION

Steve Schachter, MD
CIMIT Chief Academic Officer
CIMITGrants@partners.org

......................................................................

QUICK LINKS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

9.26.12
CIMIT Awarded $9.5M Five-Year Grant from NIBIB to Create Point-of-Care Technology Research Network (POCTRN) Center in Primary Care

Integrated Clinical EnvironmentsNeuroHealth, PTSD & TBI Industry I Foundation Engagement Homebase & Warfighter CareAccelerator

CIMIT does not rate, endorse, recommend or prescribe any products, procedures or services. Subscribe to CIMIT News in RSS

Contact the Webmaster Site Acknowledgements Copyright © 2011 CIMIT. All rights reserved. site map linking policy privacy