A novel multimodal approach for the assessment of phlebotomy performance in nurses
Author:
Oprea Oana Roxana12, Molnar Anca Alexandra12, Mănescu Ion Bogdan12
Affiliation:
1. Clinical Laboratory , County Emergency Clinical Hospital , Targu Mures , Romania 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine , George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures , Targu Mures , Romania
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Phlebotomy is presumably the most challenging preanalytical aspect in laboratory medicine. In Europe, inpatient phlebotomy is performed by nurses in 45–60 % of cases. We aimed to develop and test a novel phlebotomy assessment tool for nurses.
Methods
A group of 24 nurses working in a surgical ward was investigated. A three-pronged approach was devised: (1) a standardized knowledge test, (2) three blinded phlebotomy audits, and (3) prospective monitoring of samples sent from the investigated surgical ward for the calculation of preanalytical quality indicators.
Results
The average knowledge test score was 22.7/31 points (12–31, interquartile range 20.5–25). The average audit score was 14.5/18 points (13.7–14.7, interquartile range 14–15). No statistically significant correlations were found between phlebotomy knowledge (or lack of) and corresponding phlebotomy practices (or errors, respectively). Moreover, there was no statistically significant correlation between individual knowledge scores and audit scores. Several misconceptions about the preanalytical phase were identified, along with common phlebotomy errors.
Conclusions
Sometimes, nurses do not follow guidelines due to lack of theoretical knowledge. Other times, nurses fail to follow procedures despite having the prerequisite theoretical knowledge. We observed a discordance between theory and practice regarding certain aspects of phlebotomy. The novel multimodal methodology presented here describes an improved assessment tool and a superior alternative to the popular survey studies. This tool may be used to identify specific and recurrent phlebotomy issues and to improve institutional continuing education programs for nurses through targeted training programs.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics
Reference19 articles.
1. Simundic, AM, Cornes, M, Grankvist, K, Lippi, G, Nybo, M, Kovalevskaya, S, et al.. Survey of national guidelines, education and training on phlebotomy in 28 European countries: an original report by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PA). Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1585–93. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2013-0283. 2. Cadamuro, J, von Meyer, A, Wiedemann, H, Felder, TK, Moser, F, Kipman, U, et al.. Hemolysis rates in blood samples: differences between blood collected by clinicians and nurses and the effect of phlebotomy training. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1987–92. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0175. 3. World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on drawing blood: best practices on phlebotomy; 2010. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/268790/WHO-guidelines-on-drawing-blood-best-practices-in-phlebotomy-Eng.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2022]. 4. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Procedures for the collection of diagnostic blood specimens by venipuncture. Approved Standard – Sixth Edition; 2010. 5. Simundic, A, Bölenius, K, Cadamuro, J, Church, S, Cornes, M, van Dongen-Lases, E, et al.. On behalf of the working group for preanalytical phase (WG-PRE), of the European Federation of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine (EFLM) and Latin American working group for preanalytical phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin America confederation of clinical biochemistry (COLABIOCLI). Joint EFLM-COLABIOCLI recommendation for venous blood sampling: v 1.1, June 2018. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:2015–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-0602.
|
|