Family Practice Vol. 10, No. 2, 131-136
© Oxford University Press 1993
research-article |
Dry Chemistry Instruments in Primary Care. I. Operating Conditions and Financial Considerations
*Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Division for General Practice, University of Bergen Ulriksdal 8c, N-5009 Bergen
Laboratory Clinical Biochemistry, Haukeland University Hospital Bergen, Norway
One way of studying the impact of dry chemistry desk-top instruments in primary care is by comparing users and non-users of this technology with respect to practice setting and changes in everyday practice, as well as to elucidate reasons for not implementing this technology. We therefore mailed a similar questionnaire to all users of the most-used dry chemistry instruments in Norway (n=298) and to a 14% random sample of general practitioners (n=381), and a 40% random sample of doctors in occupational health care units (n=181). The response rate was 77–79% and 200 users and 281 non-users could be included. In general practice, more users were solo practitioners and more users had a cell counter in the office laboratory; fewer occupational health care users kept computerized records. Users reported improvement in diagnosis and treatment and claimed that patient satisfaction had improved. In general, an increase in the number of tests was estimated. Non-users were more pessimistic with regard to improvements in office laboratory service, and stated perceived problems regarding cost, workload and analytical quality as well as good service from the hospital laboratory as reasons for not implementing such instruments in their practice.