Community paramedic point of care testing: validity and usability of two commercially available devices.

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.

Social factors and behavioural reactions to radon test outcomes underlie differences in radiation exposure dose, independent of household radon level.

Radioactive radon gas inhalation causes lung cancer, and public health strategies have responded by promoting testing and exposure reduction by individuals. However, a better understanding of how radon exposure disparities are driven by psychological and social variables is required. Here, we explored how behavioural factors modified residential radon-related radiation doses incurred by 2390 people who performed a radon test. The average time from first awareness to receiving a radon test outcome was 6.8-25.5 months, depending on behaviour and attitudes. 20.5% displayed radon test urgency that reduced irradiation between awareness and outcome to 1.8 mSv from a typical 3.5 mSv, while 14.8% (more likely to be men) displayed delaying behaviours that increased exposure to 8.0 mSv. Of those with low radon, 45.9% indicated no future testing intention, underscoring the importance of original tests to reliably establish risk. Among people finding high radon, 38% mitigated quickly, 29% reported economic impediments, and 33% displayed delaying behaviours. Economic barriers and delaying behaviours resulted in 8.4 mSv/year or 10.3 mSv/year long term excess exposure, respectively, increasing lifetime risk of lung cancer by ~ 30-40%. Excess radiation doses incurred from behaviour were independent of household radon level, highlighting the strong influence of psychological and socioeconomic factors on radon exposure and lung cancer risks.

Younger North Americans are exposed to more radon gas due to occupancy biases within the residential built environment.

Residential buildings can concentrate radioactive radon gas, exposing occupants to particle radiation that increases lung cancer risk. This has worsened over time in North America, with newer residences containing greater radon. Using data from 18,971 Canadian households, we calculated annual particle radiation dose rates due to long term residential radon exposure, and examined this as a function of occupant demographics. The current particle radiation dose rate to lungs from residential radon in Canada is 4.08 mSv/y from 108.2 Bq/m3, with 23.4% receiving 100-2655 mSv doses that are known to elevate human cancer risk. Notably, residences built in the twenty-first century are occupied by significantly younger people experiencing greater radiation dose rates from radon (mean age of 46 at 5.01 mSv/y), relative to older groups more likely to occupy twentieth century-built properties (mean age of 53 at 3.45-4.22 mSv/y). Newer, higher radon-containing properties are also more likely to have minors, pregnant women and an overall higher number of occupants living there full time. As younger age-of-exposure to radon equates to greater lifetime lung cancer risk, these data reveal a worst case scenario of exposure bias. This is of concern as, if it continues, it forecasts serious future increases in radon-induced lung cancer in younger people.

The efficacy of public health information for encouraging radon gas awareness and testing varies by audience age, sex and profession.

Radioactive radon inhalation is a leading cause of lung cancer and underlies an ongoing public health crisis. Radon exposure prevention strategies typically begin by informing populations about health effects, and their initial efficacy is measured by how well and how fast information convinces individuals to test properties. This communication process is rarely individualized, and there is little understanding if messages impact diverse demographics equally. Here, we explored how 2,390 people interested in radon testing differed in their reaction to radon's public health information and their subsequent decision to test. Only 20% were prompted to radon test after 1 encounter with awareness information, while 65% required 2-5 encounters over several months, and 15% needed 6 to > 10 encounters over many years. People who most delayed testing were more likely to be men or involved in engineering, architecture, real estate and/or physical science-related professions. Social pressures were not a major factor influencing radon testing. People who were the least worried about radon health risks were older and/or men, while negative emotional responses to awareness information were reported more by younger people, women and/or parents. This highlights the importance of developing targeted demographic messaging to create effective radon exposure prevention strategies.