Secondary Logo

Point-of-Care Research: A New Series for Nursing Research

Henly, Susan J. PhD, RN

doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000052

Susan J. Henly, PhD, RN, is Editor, Nursing Research.

The editor has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Corresponding author: Susan J. Henly, PhD, RN, Professor, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Mail Stop 1331, 5-140 WDH, 308 Harvard St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (e-mail:

What images come to mind when you hear the phrase “point of care”? Do you visualize a nurse advising a mother about her child’s minor ailment in the clinic or a nurse helping a patient get out of bed in the ICU? Whatever you envision, some intersection of patient, nurse, place, and time is likely part of the picture. In the past, the point of care was taken to be a setting—hospital, clinic, infirmary—designed specifically to provide health services at specific times by specific providers to specific people with specific conditions or concerns in specific ways. Now, radical changes in technology and information, consumer expectations, demographics, health economics, and political action are revolutionizing the way care is provided. This perfect storm is upending conventional notions about point of care and opening new opportunities and challenges for nursing research.

The incredible expansion of mobile cellular subscriptions—projected to reach almost 7 billion by the end of this year (International Telecommunication Union, 2014)—may be the most significant factor allowing the point of care to extend from traditional settings to the point of living, wherever it may be. First smart handheld devices and now computers incorporated into the mundane stuff of everyday life like t-shirts have allowed generation of the quantified self-movement (Wolf, 2010). Self-collection of personal health data on-the-go was coemergent with ideas for novel patient-driven healthcare models (Swan, 2009), the potential of which has been little explored or utilized.

The same handheld, interconnected, smart technology generated the move for m-health that allows “point of care in your pocket” for healthcare providers (van Heerden, Tomlinson, & Swartz, 2012). Try a quick search of MEDLINE using “point of care” as keyword; in over 10,000 hits, you’ll find that lab testing and use of devices at the bedside in hospitals, in long-term care units, in homes, and in the field are fast changing the way assessments are done and treatment decisions are made (Bier & Schumacher, 2013; Walia, 2013). Telehealth is extending the reach of place-bound providers to the technology-mediated point of care (Institute of Medicine, 2012). Evaluation of quality in point-of-care testing and telehealth interactions is needed, however.

Wireless technology and the Internet of things (IEEE Standards Association, 2014) are creating smart environments for the point of care. Smart, patient-centered ICUs designed for healing and capitalizing on information provided by sensors and devices are envisioned (Halpern, 2014). Sensor and information capabilities have potential to inform on-going adaptation of assistive technology to enhance independence for those aging with disabilities (Agree, 2014).

Safety is a critical component of point-of-care research in nursing. For example, barcode technology and information technology are used in nursing units, laboratories, and pharmacies of hospitals around the world to support safe medication administration and accurate handling of specimens (e.g., Agrawal, 2009; Miller, Akers, Magrin, Whitehead, & Davis, 2013). Still, challenges in implementation exist (Voshall, Piscotty, Lawrence, & Targosz, 2013), and research is needed to ensure that the best systems are developed, deployed, used properly, and used for system improvement.

Infusion of technology, the possibly intrusive nature of information gathering, and privacy concerns raise questions about human factors for point-of-care research. Information technology has potential to change the nursing process at the point of care (Courtney, Demiris, & Alexander, 2005) and preservation of the caring environment amidst the technology at point of care is an ongoing concern (Buckner & Gregory, 2011). Sensors allowing real-time monitoring for safety may support independence for elderly people at home, but more knowledge is needed about the attitudes, acceptability, and rated usefulness of the systems (Cesta et al., 2011).

The increase in funding opportunities for point-of-care research underscores the expectation that new knowledge is needed to understand what works at the point of care, for whom, where, and when. The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (n.d.) sponsors the Point-of-Care Technologies Research Network; the National Institute of Nursing Research (n.d.) asked about how point-of-care/self-monitoring diagnostic devices could significantly improve self-management to improve quality of life for individuals with chronic illness. A search for “point-of-care” on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site returned almost 1,500 results across their research portfolios. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenges Canada have partnered to fund innovative ideas for point-of-care diagnostics in the developing world (“Foundation and Grand Challenges Canada,” n.d.).

Papers considered for the new, ongoing series should report findings from original point-of-care research studies. Topics include but are not limited to use of devices and information technology at the point of care, patient safety issues, m-health, telehealth, and system interoperability. Design and evaluation of “smart” environments across the health–illness continuum and research about learning health systems are relevant to the call. Findings from investigations of communication and decision-making in emerging technology-supported point-of-care settings are welcome. Papers may be enhanced to include video or interactive graphs using supplemental digital content. In advance of submission, queries to the Editor are encouraged but not required. Submissions may be regular full-length papers or research briefs. In the letter to the editor uploaded with submissions, please mention that the paper should be considered for the series. Consider point-of-care research. Contribute to new knowledge about the point of care in our digital, interconnected world.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Agrawal A. (2009). Medication errors: Prevention using information technology systems. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology , 67, 681–686. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03427.x
Agree E. M. (2014). The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability. Disability and Health Journal , 7(Suppl.), S33–S39. DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.09.004
Bier F. F.,, Schumacher S. (2013). Integration in bioanalysis: Technologies for point-of-care testing. Advances in Biochemical Engineering-Biotechnology , 133, 1–14. DOI: 10.1007/10_2012_164
Buckner M.,, Gregory D. D. (2011). Point-of-care technology. Preserving the caring environment. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly , 34, 297–305. DOI: 10.1097.CNQ.0b013e31822bac0e
Cesta A., Cortellessa G., Rasconi R., Pecora F., Scopelliti M., Tiberio L. (2011). Monitoring elderly people with the ROBOCARE domestic environment: Interaction synthesis and user evaluation. Computational Intelligence , 27, 60–82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8640.2010.00372.x
Courtney K. L., Demiris G., Alexander G. L. (2005). Information technology: Changing nursing processes at the point of care. Nursing Administration Quarterly , 29, 315–322.
“Foundation and Grand Challenges Canada.” (n.d.). Foundation and Grand Challenges Canada announce over $31 million for point-of-care diagnostics. Retrieved from
Halpern N. A. (2014). Innovative designs for the smart ICU. Part 2: The ICU. Chest , 145, 646–658. DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-004.
IEEE Standards Association. (2014). Improving personal health device communications through consensus building . Retrieved from
Institute of Medicine. (2012). The role of telehealth in an evolving health care environment—Workshop summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
International Telecommunication Union. (2014). The world in 2014 . Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from
Miller K., Akers C., Magrin G., Whitehead S., Davis A. K. (2013). Piloting the use of 2D barcode and patient safety-software in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Vox Sanguinius , 105, 159–166. DOI: 10.1111/vox.12034
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. (n.d.). Point-of-care technologies research network . Retrieved from
National Institute of Nursing Research. (n.d.). Self-management: Improving quality of life for individuals with chronic illness. Workshop summary . Retrieved from
Swan M. (2009). Emerging patient-driven health care models: An examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 6, 492–525. DOI: 10.3390.ijerph6020492
van Heerden A., Tomlinson M., Swartz L. (2012). Point of care in your pocket: A research agenda for the field of m-health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 90, 393–394. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.11.099788
Voshall B., Piscotty R., Lawrence J., Targosz M. (2013). Barcode medication administration work-arounds: A systematic review and implications for nurse executives. Journal of Nursing Administration , 43, 530–535. DOI: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182a3e8ad
Walia K. (2013). Point of care investigations in pediatric care to improve health care in rural areas. Indian Journal of Pediatrics , 80, 576–584. DOI: 10.1007/s12098-013-1016-9
Wolf G. (2010). The quantified self [online video] from TED@Cannes . Retrieved from


© 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.