>> INRstar are well presented packages.  I have been trying
>> out both and have been disappointed by the results so far.  I think the
>> underlying programmes are too crude.  We are aiming for 70% of results to
be
>> within range.

>Can you be more specific about the derivation of the 70% figure? INRstar
produces an increased workload >in the first 4-5 months after installation.
It takes that long for the algorithm to get a hold of the management, >and
establish schedules which are more in touch with patient's individual target
ranges. Thereafter the >number of test required per patient drops
dramatically.


I mean 70% of all results to be in range.  Time in range may be a more valid
measurement but the published work I have seen uses all results and 70%
appears to be a benchmark.

>The audit package within INRstar does not, however, relate the accuracy of
the test to the interval between >each test. Less well-controlled patients
will therefore skew the figures adversely. When we loaded our data >eighteen
months ago the 'within range' figure as 28% and that has now climbed
steadily to 52%.

This is the point.  We are currently achieving 65% of results in range and
would like to improve on this.  At the same time we would like to reduce
clinical input by using a reliable dosage calculator.  I wouldn't be happy
to see our figures fall and neither would the health authority who pay us
for doing the work.

Martin Bradley
[log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%