IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i23-24p4379-4389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The patients’ perspective of international normalized ratio self‐testing, remote communication of test results and confidence to move to self‐management

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Grogan
  • Michael Coughlan
  • Geraldine Prizeman
  • Niamh O'Connell
  • Nora O'Mahony
  • Katherine Quinn
  • Gabrielle McKee

Abstract

Aims and objectives To elicit the perceptions of patients, who self‐tested their international normalized ratio and communicated their results via a text or phone messaging system, to determine their satisfaction with the education and support that they received and to establish their confidence to move to self‐management. Background Self‐testing of international normalized ratio has been shown to be reliable and is fast becoming common practice. As innovations are introduced to point of care testing, more research is needed to elicit patients’ perceptions of the self‐testing process. Design This three site study used a cross‐sectional prospective descriptive survey. Methods Three hundred and thirty patients who were prescribed warfarin and using international normalized ratio self‐testing were invited to take part in the study. The anonymous survey examined patient profile, patients’ usage, issues, perceptions, confidence and satisfaction with using the self‐testing system and their preparedness for self‐management of warfarin dosage. Results The response rate was 57% (n = 178). Patients’ confidence in self‐testing was high (90%). Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the support received, but expressed the need for more information on support groups, side effects of warfarin, dietary information and how to dispose of needles. When asked if they felt confident to adjust their own warfarin levels 73% agreed. Chi‐squared tests for independence revealed that none of the patient profile factors examined influenced this confidence. The patients cited the greatest advantages of the service were reduced burden, more autonomy, convenience and ease of use. The main disadvantages cited were cost and communication issues. Conclusion Patients were satisfied with self‐testing. The majority felt they were ready to move to self‐management. Relevance to clinical practice The introduction of innovations to remote point of care testing, such as warfarin self‐testing, needs to have support at least equal to that provided in a hospital setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Grogan & Michael Coughlan & Geraldine Prizeman & Niamh O'Connell & Nora O'Mahony & Katherine Quinn & Gabrielle McKee, 2017. "The patients’ perspective of international normalized ratio self‐testing, remote communication of test results and confidence to move to self‐management," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4379-4389, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4379-4389
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13767
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13767?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michelle T Giles & Vicki Parker & Heather Bevan & Ian MR Wright, 2010. "Comparing Point of Care International Normalised Ratio testing with laboratory testing methods in a cardiac inpatient population," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(21‐22), pages 3085-3091, November.
    2. Anne Grogan & Fiona Timmins, 2010. "Patients’ perceptions of information and support received from the nurse specialist during HCV treatment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2869-2878, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4379-4389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.