POCT in telemedicine

  • Andreas Bietenbeck
  • Siegfried Jedamzik


Telemedicine makes it possible to overcome spatial separation between healthcare providers and patients by offering remote clinical diagnostics, consultations or medical emergency care via data and communication technologies. Particularly in rural areas, telemedicine has the potential to become an important component of medical care. In laboratory medicine, the majority of samples are analyzed at specialized central laboratories, often far away from the patient. The results are then transmitted electronically to the attending physician. Support in interpreting the findings can be provided by the laboratory physician either personally or on the telephone as a teleconsultation. In that regard, telemedicine has long figured prominently in laboratory medicine, without being named as such. In the POCT sector, however, telemedicine has fostered the development of new models for diagnostics and monitoring of diseases.


  1. 1.
    Bundesärztekammer (2015) Hinweise und Erläuterungen zu § 7 Absatz 4 MBO-Ä. An English translation is available under: http://www.bundesaerzte
  2. 2.
    Christensen H, Lauterlein J-J, Sørensen PD et al. (2011) Home Management of Oral Anticoagulation via Telemedicine Versus Conventional Hospital-Based Treatment. Telemedicine and e-Health 17:169–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ebinger M, Winter B, Wendt M et al. (2014) Effect of the use of ambulance-based thrombolysis on time to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 311:1622–1631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Imaging EOBOTNIOB, Bioengineering/National Heart L, Faculty BINSFW et al. (2007) Improving Healthcare Accessibility through Point-of-Care Technologies. Clinical Chemistry 53:1665–1675Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jaana M, Paré G (2007) Home telemonitoring of patients with diabetes: a systematic assessment of observed effects. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 13:242–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kost GJ, Tran NK, Tuntideelert M et al. (2006) Katrina, the Tsunami, and Point-of-Care Testing. Optimizing Rapid Response Diagnosis in Disasters 126:513–520Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Littman-Quinn R, Chandra A, Schwartz A et al. (2011) mHealth applications for telemedicine and public health intervention in Botswana. In: IST-Africa Conference Proceedings, 2011. p 1–11Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prochaska JH, Göbel S, Keller K et al. (2015) Quality of oral anticoagulation with phenprocoumon in regular medical care and its potential for improvement in a telemedicine-based coagulation service – results from the prospective, multi-center, observational cohort study thrombEVAL. BMC Medicine 13:14Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shea S, Weinstock RS, Teresi JA et al. (2009) A Randomized Trial Comparing Telemedicine Case Management with Usual Care in Older, Ethnically Diverse, Medically Underserved Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: 5 Year Results of the IDEATel Study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 16:446–456CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spielberg F, Levine RO, Weaver M (2004) Self-testing for HIV: a new option for HIV prevention? The Lancet Infectious Diseases 4:640–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walter S, Kostopoulos P, Haass A et al. (2012) Diagnosis and treatment of patients with stroke in a mobile stroke unit versus in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Neurology 11:397–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu JN, Brock TK, Mecozzi DM et al. (2010) Future Connectivity for Disaster and Emergency Point of Care. Point of Care 9:185–192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Bietenbeck
    • 1
  • Siegfried Jedamzik
    • 2
  1. 1.Klinikum rechts der TU MünchenInstitut für Klinische Chemie und PathobiochemieMünchenGermany
  2. 2.IngolstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations