Background Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community. Methods In a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing. Results Of 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant ( p = 0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)( p = 0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® ( p = 0.063). Conclusions CP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12873-019-0243-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: To evaluate the implementation phase of a community paramedic program focused on individuals experiencing homelessness (IEH) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with a high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders. Methods: A manual chart review was performed to characterise patients of the City Centre Team (CCT). A survey was performed of health professionals and partners for allied agencies that interacted with the CCT in the first 6 months of program implementation. Findings: There were 832 patient events involving 365 unique patients. Mental health and substance use disorders accounted for 75% of the events. The survey results were positive with 85% agreeing that the CCT reduced the reliance on emergency services. Conclusion: The community paramedics address the health and social needs of IEH while working in a multidisciplinary setting. The CCT is an innovative program that can inform future health service design in similar settings.

Introduction: Community Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to traditional laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The objective of this study is to compare the validity of two POCT devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) and their use by CPs in the community. Methods: In a CP programme responding to 6,000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing, and a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience. Results: Of 1,649 CP calls for service screened for enrollment, 174 had a blood draw, with 108 patient care encounters (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) individual comparisons, POCT reported a critical value that the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant difference in the number of discrepant critical values reported with epoc® compared to i-STAT®. There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1,046 (8.4%) individual comparisons, the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1%,13.3%) compared to i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1%,8.2%)(p=0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared to the epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p=0.011). Fewer field blood analysis device-logged errors occurred in i-STAT® (7.8%;95%CI:2.9%,12.7%) compared to epoc® (15.5%;95%CI:9.3%,21.7%) although not statistically significant (p=0.063). Conclusion: CP programs can expect valid results from POCT. Usability assessment suggests a preference for i-STAT.