Diez aportaciones del empleo de la metodología cualitativa en una auditoría de comunicación interna en Atención Primaria.

Qualitative methodology, originally belonging to the Social Sciences domain, has progressively incorporated to Health Research to the scepticism of many and the admiration of others. Nowadays, validity and fiability of these qualitative techniques is still questioned by a great amount of health researchers and their use provokes doubt among reviewers and other members of the scientific community. This article presents as a fundamental measure for the validity of the qualitative methodology its precise use to approach determinate research objectives specific to them and, echoing the extra issue of the Health Services Research on December 1999 on this methodology, gathers the contribution of the use of these techniques from a complementary point of view, in a Internal Communication Audit conducted in the Primary Care Services of four Regional Health Systems: Area II of the INSALUD (National Health Institute), Basque Health System, Canary Health System and Andalusian Health System.

Evaluation of two HbA1c point-of-care analyzers.

BACKGROUND Measurement of HbA1c is the most important parameter to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. Different point-of-care devices for HbA1c are available. The aim of this study was to evaluate two point-of-care testing (POCT) analyzers (DCA Vantage from Siemens and Afinion from Axis-Shield). We studied the bias and precision as well as interference from carbamylated hemoglobin. METHODS Bias of the POCT analyzers was obtained by measuring 53 blood samples from diabetic patients with a wide range of HbA1c, 4%-14% (20-130 mmol/mol), and comparing the results with those obtained by the laboratory method: HPLC HA 8160 Menarini. Precision was performed by 20 successive determinations of two samples with low 4.2% (22 mmol/mol) and high 9.5% (80 mmol/mol) HbA1c values. The possible interference from carbamylated hemoglobin was studied using 25 samples from patients with chronic renal failure. RESULTS The means of the differences between measurements performed by each POCT analyzer and the laboratory method (95% confidence interval) were: 0.28% (p<0.005) (0.10-0.44) for DCA and 0.27% (p<0.001) (0.19-0.35) for Afinion. Correlation coefficients were: r=0.973 for DCA, and r=0.991 for Afinion. The mean bias observed by using samples from chronic renal failure patients were 0.2 (range -0.4, 0.4) for DCA and 0.2 (-0.2, 0.5) for Afinion. Imprecision results were: CV=3.1% (high HbA1c) and 2.97% (low HbA1c) for DCA, CV=1.95% (high HbA1c) and 2.66% (low HbA1c) for Afinion. CONCLUSIONS Both POCT analyzers for HbA1c show good correlation with the laboratory method and acceptable precision.