How to Realize the Benefits of Point-of-Care Testing at the General Practice: A Comparison of Four High-Income Countries

Document Type : Original Article


1 Health Technology and Services Research Department, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

2 Department of General Practice and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

3 Department of Health & Human Services, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

4 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

5 Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK

6 Department of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

7 The Norwegian Organisation for Quality Improvement of Laboratory Examinations (NOKLUS), Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway

8 Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

9 Norwegian Porphyria Centre, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

10 Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

11 Sector Zorg, Zorginstituut Nederland, Diemen, The Netherlands

12 Laboratory for Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

13 Cancer Health Services Research, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia


In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, point-of-care testing (POCT) is more widely implemented in general practice compared to countries such as England and Australia. To comprehend what is necessary to realize the benefits of POCT, regarding its integration in primary care, it would be beneficial to have an overview of the structure of healthcare operations and the transactions between stakeholders (also referred to as value networks). The aim of this paper is to identify the current value networks in place applying to POCT implementation at general practices in England, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands and to compare these networks in terms of seven previously published factors that support the successful implementation, sustainability and scale-up of innovations.

The value networks were described based on formal guidelines and standards published by the respective governments, organizational bodies and affiliates. The value network of each country was validated by at least two relevant stakeholders from the respective country.

The analysis revealed that the biggest challenge for countries with low POCT uptake was the lack of effective communication between the several organizations involved with POCT as well as the high workload for general practitioners (GPs) aiming to implement POCT. It is observed that countries with a single national authority responsible for POCT have a better uptake as they can govern the task of POCT roll-out and management and reduce the workload for GPs by assisting with set-up, quality control, training and support.

Setting up a single national authority may be an effective step towards realizing the full benefits of POCT. Although it is possible for day-to-day operations to fall under the responsibility of the GP, this is only feasible if support and guidance are readily available to ensure that the workload associated with POCT is limited and as low as possible.


  1. Howick J, Cals JW, Jones C, et al. Current and future use of point-of-care tests in primary care: an international survey in Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, the UK and the USA. BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e005611. doi:1136/bmjopen-2014-005611
  2. Jordan B, Mitchell C, Anderson A, Farkas N, Batrla R. The clinical and health economic value of clinical laboratory diagnostics. EJIFCC. 2015;26(1):47-62.
  3. Mor M, Waisman Y. Point-of-care testing: a critical review. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000;16(1):45-48. doi:1097/00006565-200002000-00014
  4. Schols AMR, Dinant GJ, Hopstaken R, Price CP, Kusters R, Cals JWL. International definition of a point-of-care test in family practice: a modified e-Delphi procedure. Fam Pract. 2018;35(4):475-480. doi:1093/fampra/cmx134
  5. Hirst JA, Stevens RJ, Smith I, James T, Gudgin BC, Farmer AJ. How can point-of-care HbA1c testing be integrated into UK primary care consultations? - A feasibility study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;130:113-120. doi:1016/j.diabres.2017.05.014
  6. Stone MA, Burden AC, Burden M, Baker R, Khunti K. Near patient testing for glycated haemoglobin in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed in primary care: acceptability and satisfaction. Diabet Med. 2007;24(7):792-795. doi:1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02175.x
  7. Jani IV, Peter TF. How point-of-care testing could drive innovation in global health. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(24):2319-2324. doi:1056/NEJMsb1214197
  8. Frank SC, Cohn J, Dunning L, et al. Clinical effect and cost-effectiveness of incorporation of point-of-care assays into early infant HIV diagnosis programmes in Zimbabwe: a modelling study. Lancet HIV. 2019;6(3):e182-e190. doi:1016/s2352-3018(18)30328-x
  9. Owusu-Edusei K Jr, Gift TL, Ballard RC. Cost-effectiveness of a dual non-treponemal/treponemal syphilis point-of-care test to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38(11):997-1003. doi:1097/OLQ.0b013e3182260987
  10. Pooran A, Theron G, Zijenah L, et al. Point of care Xpert MTB/RIF versus smear microscopy for tuberculosis diagnosis in southern African primary care clinics: a multicentre economic evaluation. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(6):e798-e807. doi:1016/s2214-109x(19)30164-0
  11. El-Osta A, Woringer M, Pizzo E, et al. Does use of point-of-care testing improve cost-effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme in the primary care setting? a cost-minimisation analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e015494. doi:1136/bmjopen-2016-015494
  12. Challen L, Agbahiwe S, Cantieri T, et al. Impact of point-of-care implementation in pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinics within a community-owned health system: a two-year retrospective analysis. Hosp Pharm. 2015;50(9):783-788. doi:1310/hpj5009-783
  13. Holmes EAF, Harris SD, Hughes A, Craine N, Hughes DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Antibiotics (Basel). 2018;7(4):106. doi:3390/antibiotics7040106
  14. Rahamat-Langendoen J, Groenewoud H, Kuijpers J, Melchers WJG, van der Wilt GJ. Impact of molecular point-of-care testing on clinical management and in-hospital costs of patients suspected of influenza or RSV infection: a modeling study. J Med Virol. 2019;91(8):1408-1414. doi:1002/jmv.25479
  15. Tollånes MC, Jenum AK, Berg TJ, Løvaas KF, Cooper JG, Sandberg S. Availability and analytical quality of hemoglobin A1c point-of-care testing in general practitioners' offices are associated with better glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020;58(8):1349-1356. doi:1515/cclm-2020-0026
  16. Nayak S, Blumenfeld NR, Laksanasopin T, Sia SK. Point-of-care diagnostics: recent developments in a connected age. Anal Chem. 2017;89(1):102-123. doi:1021/acs.analchem.6b04630
  17. Haga SB. Challenges of development and implementation of point of care pharmacogenetic testing. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2016;16(9):949-960. doi:1080/14737159.2016.1211934
  18. Stavelin A, Sandberg S. Harmonization activities of Noklus - a quality improvement organization for point-of-care laboratory examinations. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;57(1):106-114. doi:1515/cclm-2018-0061
  19. Lundon DJ, Kelly BD, Nair S, et al. A COVID-19 test triage tool, predicting negative results and reducing the testing burden on healthcare systems during a pandemic. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:563465. doi:3389/fmed.2021.563465
  20. Rubulotta F, Soliman-Aboumarie H, Filbey K, et al. Technologies to optimize the care of severe COVID-19 patients for health care providers challenged by limited resources. Anesth Analg. 2020;131(2):351-364. doi:1213/ane.0000000000004985
  21. Lee SM, Meyler P, Mozel M, Choi J, Tauh T. Provider attitudes and satisfaction with rapid preoperative point-of-care COVID-19 testing using ID NOW™. Can J Anaesth. 2021;68(11):1659-1667. doi:1007/s12630-021-02073-4
  22. St John A, Price CP. Economic evidence and point-of-care testing. Clin Biochem Rev. 2013;34(2):61-74.
  23. Myllärniemi J, Helander N. Healthcare system as a value network. World Rev Enterpren Manag Sustain Dev. 2012;8(2):196-207. doi:1504/wremsd.2012.046120
  24. Verhees B, van Kuijk K, Simonse L. Care model design for e-health: integration of point-of-care testing at Dutch general practices. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;15(1):4. doi:3390/ijerph15010004
  25. Nolte E. How Do We Ensure That Innovation in Health Service Delivery and Organization Is Implemented, Sustained and Spread? WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe); 2018.
  26. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australia’s Health 2016. Australia’s Health Series No. 15. Canberra: AIHW; 2016. p. 1-13.
  27. Glover L. Australia: International Health Care System Profiles. Accessed March 23, 2020. Published 2017.
  28. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. RACGP - About the RACGP. Accessed April 6, 2020. Published 2020.
  29. Boyd M, Woolley T. Point of care testing. Surgery (Oxford). 2016;34(2):91-93. doi:1016/j.mpsur.2015.11.004
  30. Tirimacco R, St John A, Astill K, Weinholt L, Merrilees P. Point of Care Testing Implementation Guide. Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB); 2019.
  31. National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council (NPAAC). Guidelines for Point of Care Testing. NPAAC; 2015.
  32. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). Standards for Point-of-Care Testing. East Melbourne, RACGP; 2018.
  33. Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Framework Agreement between the Department of Health & Social Care and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. DHSC; 2018. p. 1-20.
  34. Drummond M, Sorenson C. Nasty or nice? a perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2009;12 Suppl 2:S8-13. doi:1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00552.x
  35. Lindahl AK. Norway: International Health Care System Profiles. Accessed March 30, 2020. Published 2017.
  36. Festøy H, Hagen C, Weise N. PPRI Pharma Profile Norway 2018. Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI); 2018.
  37. Norwegian Medical Association. About us: The Norwegian Medical Association. Accessed March 20, 2020. Published 2018.
  38. About Noklus. Accessed March 20, 2020.
  39. Accessed April 6, 2020.
  40. Wammes J, Jeurissen P, Westert G, Tanke M. Netherlands: International Health Care System Profiles. Accessed March 29, 2020. Published 2017.
  41. Nederlandse Huisartsen Genootschap. About us: Dutch College of General Practitioners. Accessed April 6, 2020. Published 2019.
  42. Hopstaken RM, Kleinveld HA, van Balen JA, et al. Richtlijn Point of Care Testing (POCT) in de Huisartsenzorg. 2015.
  43. Derksen JT, Staal P, Ligtenberg G, Heymans J, Verstijnen I. Medical Tests (Assessment of Established Medical Science and Medical Practice). Vol 293. 2011.
  44. Castle-Clarke S, Edwards N, Buckingham H. Falling Short: Why the NHS is Still Struggling to Make the Most of New Innovations. London: Nuffield Trust; 2017.
  45. Laurence CO, Gialamas A, Bubner T, et al. Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(572):e98-104. doi:3399/bjgp10X483508
  46. Kuupiel D, Bawontuo V, Mashamba-Thompson TP. Improving the accessibility and efficiency of point-of-care diagnostics services in low- and middle-income countries: lean and agile supply chain management. Diagnostics (Basel). 2017;7(4):58. doi:3390/diagnostics7040058
  47. Zion Market Research. Point Of Care Diagnostics Market by Products, by Prescription Mode (Prescription-Based Testing Kits and Over-the-Counter Testing Kits) Market for Hospitals, Clinics and Ambulatory Care Settings: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2016-2022. 2017. Accessed June 5, 2018.
Volume 11, Issue 10
October 2022
Pages 2248-2260
  • Receive Date: 08 March 2021
  • Revise Date: 09 September 2021
  • Accept Date: 12 October 2021
  • First Publish Date: 13 October 2021