umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Is the test result correct? A questionnaire study of blood collection practices in primary health care
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Biosciences.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Biosciences.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Biosciences, Clinical chemistry.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nursing.
2010 (English)In: Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, ISSN 1356-1294, E-ISSN 1365-2753, Vol. 16, no 4, 707-711 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Rationale, aims and objectives  Venous blood tests are important for clinical decision making. Most errors in blood testing are due to human errors before the blood samples reach the laboratory. The present study was designed to investigate venous blood sampling (VBS) practices in primary health care centres (PHCs) compared with clinical laboratory staff.

Method  A cross-sectional survey of 70 PHCs and two clinical laboratories is conducted. All staff responsible for VBS (317 respondents, response rate 94%) completed a questionnaire on VBS practices.

Results  Instructions for VBS were not followed in the surveyed PHCs. For example, only 54% reported that they always identified the patient by using name/Swedish identification number and only 5% reported that they always used photo-ID, the two preferred means for patient identification. Only 12% reported that they always released venous stasis as soon as possible. Fewer PHC staff than clinical laboratory staff reported correct VBS practices. For example, 54% of the PHC staff reported that they always identified the patient by name and Swedish identification number, as compared with 95% of the clinical laboratory staff (P < 0.001). Documented VBS routines and re-education in VBS were not clearly associated with reported correct VBS practices.

Conclusions  In the surveyed PHCs, there are clinically important risks for misidentification of patients and erroneous test results, with consequences for the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Quality interventions, aimed at improving VBS practices, are needed to ensure patient safety.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Blackwell Publishing, 2010. Vol. 16, no 4, 707-711 p.
Keyword [en]
blood specimen collection, medical errors, phlebotomy, primary health care, questionnaires, specimen handling
National Category
Other Clinical Medicine
Research subject
Clinical Chemistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-40744DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01179.xISI: 000279901700007PubMedID: 20557417OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-40744DiVA: diva2:402389
Available from: 2011-03-08 Created: 2011-03-08 Last updated: 2017-12-11Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Sources of preanalytical error in primary health care: implications for patient safety
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Sources of preanalytical error in primary health care: implications for patient safety
2009 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Background Venous blood tests constitute an important part in the diagnosis and treatment of patients. However, test results are often viewed as objective values rather than the end result of a complex process. This has clinical importance since most errors arise before the sample reaches the laboratory. Such preanalytical errors affect patient safety and are often due to human mistakes in the collection and handling of the sample. The preanalytical performance of venous blood testing in primary health care, where the majority of the patients contact with care occurs, has not previously been reported.

Aims To investigate venous blood sampling practices and the prevalence of haemolysed blood samples in primary health care.

Methods A questionnaire investigated the collection and handling of venous blood samples in primary health care centres in two county councils and in two hospital clinical laboratories. Haemolysis index was used to evaluate the prevalence of haemolysed blood samples sent from primary health care centres, nursing homes and a hospital emergency department.

Results and discussion The results indicate that recommended preanalytical procedures were not always followed in the surveyed primary health care centres. For example, only 54% reported to always use name and Swedish identification number, and 5% to use photo-ID, the two recommended means for patient identification. Only 12% reported to always label the test tubes prior to blood collection. This increases the possibility of sample mix-up. As few as 6% reported to always allow the patient to rest at least 15 minutes before blood collection, desirable for a correct test result. Only 31% reported to have filed an incident report regarding venous blood sampling, indicating underreporting of incidents in the preanalytical phase.

Major differences in the prevalence of haemolysed blood samples were found. For example, samples collected in the primary health care centre with the highest prevalence of haemolysed samples were six times (95% CI 4.0 to 9.2) more often haemolysed compared to the centre with the lowest prevalence. The significant variation in haemolysed samples is likely to reflect varying preanalytical conditions.

Conclusions This thesis indicates that the preanalytical procedure in primary health care is associated with an increased risk of errors with consequences for patient safety and care. Monitoring of haemolysis index could be a valuable tool for estimating preanalytical sample quality. Further studies and interventions aimed at the preanalytical phase in primary health care are clearly needed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Institutionen för medicinsk biovetenskap, 2009. 72 p.
Series
Umeå University medical dissertations, ISSN 0346-6612 ; 1250
Keyword
blood specimen collection, haemolysis, medical errors, phlebotomy, preanalytical, primary health care, quality indicators, quality of health care, questionnaires, specimen handling
National Category
Other Clinical Medicine
Research subject
Medicine
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-21256 (URN)978-91-7264-741-1 (ISBN)
Public defence
2009-05-08, Sal 135, Byggnad 9A, Bv, Norrlands Universitetssjukhus, 901 85 Umeå, Umeå, 09:00 (Swedish)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2009-04-20 Created: 2009-04-09 Last updated: 2012-11-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Söderberg, JohanWallin, OlofGrankvist, KjellBrulin, Christine
By organisation
Department of Medical BiosciencesClinical chemistryDepartment of Nursing
In the same journal
Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice
Other Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 145 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf