Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by THUE, G
Right arrow Articles by OLSEN, T E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by THUE, G
Right arrow Articles by OLSEN, T E
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 10, No. 2, 124-130
© Oxford University Press 1993


research-article

Dry Chemistry Instruments in Primary Care. I. Operating Conditions and Financial Considerations

G THUE*, S SANDBERG*,{dagger}, E BRATBERG**, A E RISA** and T E OLSEN{ddagger}

*Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Division for General Practice, University of Bergen Ulriksdal 8c, N-5009 Bergen
{dagger}Laboratory Clinical Biochemistry, Haukeland University Hospital Bergen
**Department of Economics, University of Bergen
{ddagger}The Norwegian Centre for Rese in Organization and Management, Bergen, Norway

The objectives of this study were to describe the operating conditions of dry chemistry instruments in primary care, as well as to elucidate financial aspects in general practice fee-for-service settings. We used questionnaires mailed to all users of the two most used dry chemistry instruments in Norway, as well as to a 14% random sample of Norwegian GPs. The overall response rate was 79%. The mean number of dry chemistry analyses varied considerably between individual users, but in general a substantial number of analyses were carried out. Even though most analyses on the instruments' repertoire were available in all user groups, a total of 13 additional constituents were suggested to be included in the repertoire. In occupational health care most results were ready when the client was present; this was not the case in general practice. The instruments were more profitable when more constituents were analysed per sample, although profitability varied substantially in the period studied (1986–1989). A discrete time history event analysis revealed that net profit earned, lower instrument price, available information about the technology and being in solo practice significantly influenced the decision to buy an instrument in fee-for- service practices.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.