Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 9

Issues

Compliance of blood sampling procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines: An observational study by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PRE)

Ana-Maria Simundic
  • Corresponding author
  • University Department of Chemistry, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Stephen Church
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • BD Diagnostics – Preanalytical Systems, Oxford, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Michael P. Cornes
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Clinical Chemistry Department, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Kjell Grankvist
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Department of Medical Biosciences, Clinical Chemistry, Umeå University, Umea, Sweden
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Giuseppe LippiORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9523-9054 / Mads Nybo
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Nora Nikolac
  • University Department of Chemistry, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Edmee van Dongen-Lases
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Department of Clinical Chemistry, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Pinar Eker
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Ümraniye Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Svjetlana Kovalevskaya
  • University Department of Chemistry, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Clinical Laboratory Diagnostic Department with course of molecular medicine, 1st Pavlov State Medical University, Sankt Petersburg, Russia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Gunn B.B. Kristensen
  • University Department of Chemistry, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Norwegian Clinical Chemistry EQA Programme, Bergen, Norway
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ludek Sprongl
  • University Department of Chemistry, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Central Laboratory, Sumperk Hospital, Sumperk, Czech Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Zorica Sumarac
  • University Department of Chemistry, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia
  • European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  • Center for Medical Biochemistry, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-12-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-1053

Abstract

Background: An observational study was conducted in 12 European countries by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (EFLM WG-PRE) to assess the level of compliance with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines.

Methods: A structured checklist including 29 items was created to assess the compliance of European phlebotomy procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guideline. A risk occurrence chart of individual phlebotomy steps was created from the observed error frequency and severity of harm of each guideline key issue. The severity of errors occurring during phlebotomy was graded using the risk occurrence chart.

Results: Twelve European countries participated with a median of 33 (18–36) audits per country, and a total of 336 audits. The median error rate for the total phlebotomy procedure was 26.9 % (10.6–43.8), indicating a low overall compliance with the recommended CLSI guideline. Patient identification and test tube labelling were identified as the key guideline issues with the highest combination of probability and potential risk of harm. Administrative staff did not adhere to patient identification procedures during phlebotomy, whereas physicians did not adhere to test tube labelling policy.

Conclusions: The level of compliance of phlebotomy procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines in 12 European countries was found to be unacceptably low. The most critical steps in need of immediate attention in the investigated countries are patient identification and tube labelling.

Keywords: guidelines; observational study; phlebotomy; preanalytical phase; risk analysis

Introduction

Venous blood sampling (phlebotomy) is the most common invasive procedure performed in health care. It consists of several discrete steps, all of which can be subject to errors [1, 2] which potentially impact patient safety. Amongst the errors are patient/sample misidentification so that analytical results are not associated with the correct patient [3]; alteration of the concentration of some analytes by prolonged use of a tourniquet [4, 5] or by contamination of the sample with intravenous fluids [6] and contrast media [7]; inadequate patient preparation, i.e., fasting [8–10] or increased physical activity [11]; not achieving the specified blood collection volume, which may lead to the incorrect additive to blood ratio and thus affect the test results [12] and many others. In addition to factors that can affect sample quality, some practices can also have an impact on patient or healthcare worker safety [13]. For example, if the collection site is not correctly disinfected, or is touched post disinfection, then the site will not be sterile. Also, if the healthcare worker does not wear gloves or dispose the collection device correctly, there is the potential for the worker to come into contact with blood-borne pathogens.

Whilst guidelines on correct practice are available, including the H3-A6 guideline issued by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in 2007 [14], recommendations issued by national societies [15], or the guidelines on drawing blood published by the World Health Organization in 2010 [16], the complexity and large number of blood collections, in conjunction with their locations, make assessments of adherence to guidelines challenging. There are many reasons for which blood collections do not conform to published guidelines, including the lack of understanding the impact of using incorrect procedures, not being familiar with the relevant guidelines, an unwillingness to follow the guidelines, workload or insufficient time [17]. External factors such as a lack of support from others in the hospital environment can also have an impact [18]. Changes in laboratory methods can lead to a need to adapt phlebotomy procedures, and training can help to improve practices [19, 20]. Currently, there is a wide range of different professions with varying level of experience and education who are involved in blood sample collection procedures at the European level. Due to such heterogeneity, there is obviously a need for continuous education and training of healthcare personnel involved in phlebotomy procedures [21]. It has been demonstrated that education leads to improved adherence to guideline recommendations for patient identification, tourniquet release and test tube labelling [22].

Unfortunately, the quality of practices and procedures related to blood sample collection in European countries is currently not known. Therefore, the aim of our study was: 1) to assess the level of compliance of phlebotomy procedures with CLSI H3-A6 guideline; and 2) to identify the most critical steps which need immediate attention and improvement in EFLM member countries by creating a risk occurrence chart based on the observed error frequency and severity scoring.

Materials and methods

Survey design

This survey was conducted by the EFLM Working Group on the Preanalytical Phase in the period of June 2013–March 2014. Important key issues were chosen from the CLSI guideline by all members of the working group and addressed in such a manner that an observational study was possible with simple yes/no answers for the majority of the questions. As shown in Figure 1 the study checklist consisted of 29 specific questions for the observer, addressing different issues of the venous blood sampling process from the preparation phase (Did the collector assemble all necessary supplies prior to collection?) through the sampling process (Did the collector clean the venipuncture site?) to the post sampling phase (Did the collector check potential complications of venipuncture?).

Study checklist use to assess the level of compliance of phlebotomy procedure with CLSI H3-A6 guideline.
Figure 1

Study checklist use to assess the level of compliance of phlebotomy procedure with CLSI H3-A6 guideline.

The investigation was conducted as an observational study. Staff members performing blood collection (i.e., collector) were observed three times in three different settings: 1) an outpatient phlebotomy unit; 2) a hospital clinical ward; and 3) an emergency department. Since, due to the practical or legal issues, it was not possible to perform collections in all settings, the final number of collections per location differed among participating countries.

Data analysis

Possible replies were: 1) yes; 2) no; and 3) not applicable (NA). The favourable answer (compliance) for most of the study checklist questions was yes. If the reply was no, it was considered as evidence for non-compliance with the procedure.

Q6 was analysed only in phlebotomies performed in outpatients.

Q13 and 14 were analysed only in those who responded positively to question 12 (Did the collector clean the venipuncture site?).

For Q19 (Were any of the sample tubes clearly under- or overfilled?), no was considered as the favourable answer. Therefore, for this question yes was considered as non-compliance and presented in the study results as deviation from the correct procedure (i.e., error).

For Q25 (When were the sample tubes labelled?), the favourable answer was if samples were labelled after phlebotomy.

Q26 was analysed only for those who have labelled the tubes after phlebotomy.

Results are presented as counts and percentages. Differences between groups were analysed with χ2-test. Data were analysed in MedCalc statistical software 11.5.1.0 (Frank Schoonjans, Mariakerke, Belgium). A p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Risk analysis

Risk occurrence analysis was done using the semi-quantitative methodology developed for medical device manufacturers in the internationally agreed standard ISO 14971 Annex D [23]. This analysis defines processes and tools to identify the hazards associated with medical devices, including in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices, to estimate and evaluate the associated risks, to control these risks, and to monitor the effectiveness of the controls. In our study, rather than hazards associated with a medical device, we have used the risk occurrence analysis to assess potential hazards associated with the phlebotomy procedure. Severity was assessed individually by all members of the working group (n=11) and the median score was used for further analysis. Probability was equal to the frequency of the error observed during the survey. Possible occurrence and severity scores were as follows (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1

Probability of occurrence scoring system.

Table 2

Severity scoring system.

Severity and probability were used to construct the risk occurrence chart (Table 4). Phlebotomy steps located in the ‘green’ region are considered as generally acceptable and for those steps no further risk reduction is required. ‘Yellow’ region is the region of ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable), where probable risk should be as low as reasonably practicable. Steps in that region are pointing to the need for an action to lower the probability of risk. ‘Red’ zone is the intolerable region. Steps located in the red zone are those for which the estimated risk is unacceptable. For those steps, immediate action is required to lower the probability of an error.

Results

Twelve European countries participated in this study: Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Kazakhstan, The Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey and the UK.

The median number of audits per country was 33 (18–36). The total number of audits was 336. Their distribution across three categories of patient healthcare setting [emergency department (EMG), outpatient department (OUT) and clinical wards (WARD)] is presented in Figure 2.

The distribution of audits performed across three categories of patient healthcare setting. EMG, emergency department; OUT, outpatient department; WARD, clinical wards.
Figure 2

The distribution of audits performed across three categories of patient healthcare setting.

EMG, emergency department; OUT, outpatient department; WARD, clinical wards.

Phlebotomies observed during the study were performed by five different healthcare personnel categories: medical doctors (DR), nurses (NURSE), laboratory staff (LAB), phlebotomists (PHLB) and administrative staff (ADMIN). The majority of phlebotomies were done by nurses and laboratory personnel. The distribution of phlebotomies performed by different professions is presented in Figure 3.

The distribution of audits performed by different healthcare professions. ADMIN, administrative staff; DR, medical doctors; LAB, laboratory staff; NURSE, nurses; PHLB, phlebotomists.
Figure 3

The distribution of audits performed by different healthcare professions.

ADMIN, administrative staff; DR, medical doctors; LAB, laboratory staff; NURSE, nurses; PHLB, phlebotomists.

Administrative staff was involved in phlebotomies only in the outpatient setting, whereas all other professions were equally distributed across patient settings (emergency department, outpatient department and clinical wards).

Summary results for all 29 questions are presented in Figure 4.

Summary of results. Frequencies for all 29 questions observed during each phlebotomy.
Figure 4

Summary of results.

Frequencies for all 29 questions observed during each phlebotomy.

Frequency of errors occurring during the phlebotomy and their respective severity scores are presented in Table 3. Q2, 3, 7, 17 and 25 relate to the policy of the institution and show collective behaviour and systematic deviations from the correct procedure, rather than individual non-compliance. For Q10, we have observed only one non-compliant sampling occasion probably reflecting difficulty of the auditor to assess whether the phlebotomy site was suitable, rather than the actual compliance. For this reason, this question was excluded from further analysis and interpretation. Median error rate for the total phlebotomy procedure (complete checklist, without Q10) was 26.9 (10.6–43.8), pointing to the low overall compliance with recommended CLSI procedure.

Table 3

Audit results. Frequency of errors observed during phlebotomies (n=336) and their assessed respective severity scores, along with the calculated differences between different patient settings and various professions.

The risk occurrence chart (Table 4) provides an overview of the priority that was estimated by WG members for each phlebotomy step. In our survey, the steps in the ‘red zone’ which had the highest combination of impact and probability were Q3, Q4, Q25 and Q26. Those steps were assessed as being of critical importance and a top priority for laboratory professionals. A critical error within the phlebotomy procedure was the identification procedure (Q4).

Table 4

Risk occurrence chart for various phlebotomy steps.

For Q4 (Identification procedure), the level of compliance of a collector with a recommended identification procedure differed significantly between different patient settings (p=0.011). The overall frequency of identification errors was rather low, but identification errors were still assessed as causing the major patient safety risk, due to potential high degree of severity of harm to the patient. Identification errors were more frequent in emergency and outpatient departments, as compared with clinical wards (Figure 5).

Level of compliance of staff performing blood collection with CLSI identification procedure across different patient settings. EMG, emergency department; OUT, outpatient department; WARD, clinical wards.
Figure 5

Level of compliance of staff performing blood collection with CLSI identification procedure across different patient settings.

EMG, emergency department; OUT, outpatient department; WARD, clinical wards.

The level of compliance (for Q4) with recommended identification procedure also differed significantly between different type of professions (p<0.001). Administrative staff was most likely to be non-compliant with the recommended identification procedure (Figure 6).

The level of compliance (for Q4) with recommended identification procedure between different types of professions. ADMIN, administrative staff; DR, medical doctors; LAB, laboratory staff; NURSE, nurses; PHLB, phlebotomists.
Figure 6

The level of compliance (for Q4) with recommended identification procedure between different types of professions.

ADMIN, administrative staff; DR, medical doctors; LAB, laboratory staff; NURSE, nurses; PHLB, phlebotomists.

Q25 and 26 were also in the ‘red zone’ due to their substantially high degree of potential harm to the patient and frequency. Whereas Q25 probably reflects the importance of institutional policy, Q26 provides information about whether the tubes were labelled in the presence of the patient (this question was applicable only for those phlebotomies during which tubes were labelled after the phlebotomy). The frequency of errors related to Q26 differed relative to the different patient settings and were more prevalent on clinical wards than in emergency departments and outpatient settings (p<0.001) (Figure 7). Furthermore, the error frequency was highest in medical doctors and nurses than in other types of professions involved in phlebotomy (p<0.001) (Figure 8).

The level of compliance (for Q26) with recommended tube labelling procedure between different types of patient settings. EMG, emergency department; OUT, outpatient department; WARD, clinical wards.
Figure 7

The level of compliance (for Q26) with recommended tube labelling procedure between different types of patient settings.

EMG, emergency department; OUT, outpatient department; WARD, clinical wards.

The level of compliance (for Q26) with recommended tube labelling procedure between different types of professions. ADMIN, administrative staff; DR, medical doctors; LAB, laboratory staff; NURSE, nurses; PHLB, phlebotomists.
Figure 8

The level of compliance (for Q26) with recommended tube labelling procedure between different types of professions.

ADMIN, administrative staff; DR, medical doctors; LAB, laboratory staff; NURSE, nurses; PHLB, phlebotomists.

Discussion

The level of compliance of phlebotomy procedure with the CLSI H3-A6 guideline in 12 European countries was found to be unacceptably low and patient identification and tube labelling were found to be the most critical steps.

Preanalytical phase has been recognised as the significant source of errors and variability in laboratory testing since the early 1970s of the last century and the terms ‘influence’ and ‘interference factors’ became a part of standard terminology in laboratory sciences ever since [24]. In fact the preanalytical phase is now acknowledged as the main contributor to diagnostic errors in the total testing process [1]. Venous blood specimen haemolysis or clotting, incompletely filled test tubes, patient misidentification and mislabelling of test tubes are some of the most frequent errors in the preanalytical phase. Most of the errors are detected and corrected for, but a substantial proportion of unsuitable specimens and test requests unfortunately goes undetected and may in the end affect the clinical management of the patients. Potential consequences of preanalytical errors for the patient are: the need for test repetition and repeated blood sampling causing the patient discomfort and risk of delayed diagnosis or therapy, additional diagnostic procedures, increased healthcare costs, inappropriate diagnosis or therapy as well as hospitalisation and even death.

Laboratories and laboratory personnel have traditionally been putting most of their efforts into the improvement of the analytical phase with focus on sample processing and reducing analytical bias and variation. Since phlebotomy is most often done outside the laboratory and not under the direct supervision of the laboratory staff, errors which occur during phlebotomy are not easy to address and correct. In addition, analytical laboratories often monitor, register and address the seemingly randomly distributed preanalytical errors that arise throughout the healthcare organisation. These errors are often not effectively managed and still pose a challenge to laboratory professionals and constantly jeopardise patient safety [25].

Clinical practice guidelines aim to guide healthcare staff in decision making and are an indispensable part of professional quality systems [26]. Adherence to guidelines aims to standardise medical care; raises care quality and reduce patient risks by reducing inappropriate variations in practice [27, 28]. Clinical practice guidelines are usually consensus statements on best available practice in a particular area, and are increasingly embraced by international healthcare organisations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) [29].

Guidelines on venous blood specimen collection practice, such as the commonly used CLSI H3-A6 guideline (CLSI 2007) or the guideline published by the WHO, are comprehensive and extensive and describe many discrete chronological practice steps, all of which can be subject to error. The drawback of the standards is that numerous practice steps are quite often difficult to remember for the phlebotomist. Thus, the most important steps may be forgotten or unintentionally missed. The standards are limited to the collection procedure and therefore to a large extent focused on patient and collectors safety and not on the overall effects of a bad sample collection or sample handling on the patient safety. The guidelines in addition do not contain risk evaluation of the different steps and also lack advice on how to best implement and sustain practices recommended by the guideline. As such, these standards are less suited for daily healthcare practice or for risk management to minimise the risk for compromised patient safety.

In our study, the observed phlebotomy error frequency and a severity scoring yielded a risk occurrence chart where the key issues in the critical ‘red region’ which had the highest combination of impact and probability were Q3 (expiry dates of collection devices), Q4 (patient identification), Q25 and Q26 (specimen labelling). The identification and labelling steps are important safety barriers and are intended to prevent patient identity mix-up as the last defense. Q3 was left aside as expiry dates of devices by the collecting staff were seldom performed directly by the phlebotomist as demanded by the guidelines, but performed by other staff in the logistic chain and therefore judged as an overall moderate risk. A critical error within the phlebotomy procedure was the identification procedure (Q4) because of the high severity scoring combined with a remote frequency of observed errors. Identification errors were more frequent in emergency and outpatient departments, as compared with clinical wards. Misidentification errors are not easily detectable in daily work [3]. However, they have been reported with unacceptable frequency in everyday routine work by several authors [30–32]. Identification errors along with the proper diet restriction assessment and failure to allow patients to rest prior to phlebotomy were the most frequent errors observed in one recent cross-sectional comparative study performed in three government hospitals in South Ethiopia from February 2012 to September 2012 [33]. Improving patient identification by reducing the frequency of errors is therefore an ongoing challenge in all types of blood collection procedures and also a critical issue in other healthcare areas [34].

The specimen labelling questions (Q25 and 26) were also in the ‘red zone’ due to their substantially high degree of potential harm to the patient and frequency. Labelling the specimen after blood sampling and not in the presence of the patient was a moderately frequent error in our study but was assessed as being possibly life threatening. This issue is therefore of critical importance, highly relevant and obviously shows room for improvement.

Individual [17] as well as organisational external factors [18] impact guideline non-conformity. Our data indicate corrective action flaws at both the organisational and individual levels. Recent studies on clinical practice guideline adherence have mainly focused on the organisational aspect. Studies to identify reasons for individual hazard behaviour that might explain habitual choices to ignore important safety rules are few and empirical research on the relationship between workplace affiliation and healthcare staff adherence to venous blood specimen collection practice guidelines is currently lacking. It is remarkable that administrative staff were non-adherent to patient identification and doctors to tube labelling procedures. This could reflect serious flaws in their phlebotomy education and should be addressed with great attention. The association of various occupations with adherence to guideline practices was shown to differ significantly in a study of hand hygiene [35]. However, in a study of guideline adherence in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, no such association was found [36]. Further research is warranted on both organisational and individual factors contributing to higher levels of clinical practice guideline adherence and increased patient safety. Patient safety programmes that minimise risk of harm to patients and providers through system effectiveness as well as individual practice are needed [37, 38].

Guideline adherence may be improved by education and training [22] but accreditation of venous blood specimen collection only has marginal effects [39]. The ISO 15189:2012 standard [40] regulates that the laboratory is responsible for producing adequate instructions and possibility for training and that it is responsible for the conditions of the samples at arrival too. This means that the preanalytical conditions are regularly reviewed by the laboratory and the national accreditation bodies in turn regularly assess the laboratory’s adherence to good practice [41]. National societies of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine carry a substantial responsibility to ensure, preserve and improve patient safety. With existing contradictory or insufficient guidelines and regulations, errors may occur in the lower levels of the organisation [42–44]. Modifying guidelines to become more focused, easy to understand and applicable should be prioritised in future research and health care [18].

Modifying staff behavior to conform more closely to practice guidelines and other recommended practices has proved to be a difficult task [45]. One reason is that efficient and accurate methods of measuring adherence are missing as they are essential for policies and programmes aiming to improve adherence. Questionnaires are the most widely used instrument to assess clinical guideline adherence [46–48] and questionnaires have successfully been used also to monitor venous blood specimen collection guideline adherence [49]. Observational studies are seldom used, but have the advantage of direct observation of specimen collection errors and when performed in a larger scale, such as this study, also allow an error frequency determination for each key issue. In this observational study we added a severity grading to the observed error frequency to get an overall risk assessment and indication on the most critical practice steps when to implement corrections.

Adoption of clinical practice guidelines is affected by several issues, among them the way they are implemented [50]. High evidence that the context is accessible to change, appropriate monitoring and feedback mechanisms [26], and available time for personnel to discuss research findings [51, 52] are mentioned as important factors for improving adherence to guidelines.

Conclusions

Observation of venous blood specimen collection practices using a template checklist and risk analysis is an efficient method to assess critical steps in phlebotomy. Moreover, feedback, discussions and reflection amongst phlebotomy personnel promises to be an efficient tool to implement and sustain adherence to phlebotomy guideline practice [53–55] and lead to long-term improvements in patient safety.

Our study shows that the overall level of compliance of phlebotomy procedures with CLSI H3-A6 guideline in 12 European countries is unacceptably low, especially regarding patient identification and tube labelling. These issues call for immediate attention and improvement.

Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Financial support: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

  • 1.

    Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Franchini M, Guidi GC. Phlebotomy issues and quality improvement in results of laboratory testing. Clin Lab 2006;52:217–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Guidi GC. Laboratory quality improvement by implementation of phlebotomy guidelines. Med Lab Obs 2006;38:6–7.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of identification errors in laboratory diagnostics. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:143–53.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Manguera CL, Sumita NM, et al. New ways to deal with known preanalytical issues: use of transilluminator instead of tourniquet for easing vein access and eliminating stasis on clinical biochemistry. Biochem Med 2011;21:152–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Solero GP, Guidi GC. The influence of the tourniquet time on hematological testing for antidoping purposes. Int J Sports Med 2006;27:359–62.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Lippi G, Avanzini R, Sandei F, Aloe R, Cervellin G. Blood sample contamination by glucose-containing solutions: effects and identification. Br J Biomed Sci 2013;70:180–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Lippi G, Daves M, Mattiuzzi C. Interference of medical contrast media on laboratory testing. Biochem Med 2014;24:80–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Simundic AM, Cornes M, Grankvist K, Lippi G, Nybo M. Standardization of collection requirements for fasting samples: for the Working Group on Preanalytical Phase (WG-PA) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:33–7.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Kackov S, Simundic AM, Gatti-Drnic A. Are patients well informed about the fasting requirements for laboratory blood testing? Biochem Med 2013;23:326–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Lima-Oliveira G, Salvagno GL, Lippi G, Danese E, Gelati M, Montagnana M, et al. Could light meal jeopardize laboratory coagulation tests? Biochem Med 2014;24:343–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Sanchis-Gomar F, Lippi G. Physical activity – an important preanalytical variable. Biochem Med 2014;24:68–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Favaloro EJ, Funk DM, Lippi G. Pre-analytical variables in coagulation testing associated with diagnostic errors in hemostasis. Lab Med 2012;43:1–10.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    De Carli G, Abiteboul D, Puro V. The importance of implementing safe sharps practices in the laboratory setting in Europe. Biochem Med 2014;24:45–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Procedures for collection of diagnostic blood specimens by venipuncture; approved guideline, 6th ed. CLSI document H3-A6. CLSI: Wayne, PA, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Nikolac N, Supak-Smolcic V, Simundic AM, Celap I. Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine: national recommendations for venous blood sampling. Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Biochem Med 2013;23:242–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on drawing blood. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/ 2010/9789241599221_eng.pdf. Accessed 11 January, 2013.

  • 17.

    Amon E. Communication strategies for reducing hospital error and professional liability. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2002;57:713–4.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, Mistiaen P. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008;8:38.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Picheth G, Guidi GC. Impact of the phlebotomy training based on CLSI/NCCLS H03-a6 – procedures for the collection of diagnostic blood specimens by venipuncture. Biochem Med 2012;22:342–51.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Picheth G, Guidi GC. The effective reduction of tourniquet application time after minor modification of the CLSI H03-A6 blood collection procedure. Biochem Med 2013;23:308–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    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.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Bolenius K, Soderberg J, Hultdin J, Lindkvist M, Brulin C, Grankvist K. Minor improvement of venous blood specimen collection practices in primary health care after a large-scale educational intervention. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:303–10.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    ISO14971:2012 Medical devices: application of risk management to medical devices. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, 2012.Google Scholar

  • 24.

    Guder W. History of the preanalytical phase: a personal view. Biochem Med 2014;24:25–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Simundic AM, Lippi G. Preanalytical phase – a continuous challenge for laboratory professionals. Biochem Med 2012;22:145–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 26.

    Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003;362:1225–30.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II46–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Selecting, presenting and delivering clinical guidelines: are there any ‘magic bullets’? Med J Austr 2004;180:S52–54.Google Scholar

  • 29.

    Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst 2006;4:13.Google Scholar

  • 30.

    Grecu DS, Vlad DC, Dumitrascu V. Quality indicators in the preanalytical phase of testing in a stat laboratory. Lab Med 2014;45:74–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 31.

    Atay A, Demir L, Cuhadar S, Saglam G, Unal H, Aksun S, et al. Clinical biochemistry laboratory rejection rates due to various types of preanalytical errors. Biochem Med 2014;24:376–82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 32.

    Giménez-Marín A, Rivas-Ruiz F, del Mar Pérez-Hidalgo M, Molina-Mendoza P. Pre-analytical errors management in the clinical laboratory: a five-year study. Biochem Med 2014;24:248–57.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 33.

    Melkie M, Girma A, Tsalla T. The practice of venous blood collection among laboratory and non-laboratory professionals working in Ethiopian Government Hospitals: a comparative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:88.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 34.

    Lippi G, Becan-McBride K, Behúlová D, Bowen RA, Church S, Delanghe J, et al. Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:229–41.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 35.

    Sahay S, Panja S, Ray S, Rao BK. Diurnal variation in hand hygiene compliance in a tertiary level multidisciplinary intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:535–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 36.

    Kallestedt ML, Berglund A, Thoren AB, Herlitz J, Enlund M. Occupational affiliation does not influence practical skills in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital healthcare professionals. Scand J Trauma Resus Emerg Med 2011;19:3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 37.

    Thornlow DK, McGuinn K. A necessary sea change for nurse faculty development: spotlight on quality and safety. J Prof Nurs 2010;26:71–81.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 38.

    Lillo R, Salinas M, López Garrigós M, Naranjo Santana Y, Gutiérrez M, Marín MD, et al. Reducing preanalytical laboratory sample errors through educational and technological interventions. Clin Lab 2012;58:911–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 39.

    Ho B, Ho E. The most common nonconformities encountered during the assessments of medical laboratories in Hong Kong using ISO 15189 as accreditation criteria. Biochem Med 2012;22:247–57.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 40.

    Jansen RT, Kenny D, Blaton V, Burnett D, Huisman W, Plebani M, et al. Usefulness of EC4 essential criteria for quality systems of medical laboratories as guideline to the ISO 15189 and ISO 17025 documents. European Community Confederation of Clinical Chemistry (EC4) working group on harmonisation of quality systems and accreditation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2000;38:1057–64.Google Scholar

  • 41.

    Huisman W. European Communities Confederation of Clinical Chemistry Working Group on Accreditation: past, present and future. Clin Chim Acta 2001;309:111–4.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 42.

    Norris B. Human factors and safe patient care. J Nurs Manage 2009;17:203–11.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 43.

    Sandström B, Borglin G, Nilsson R, Willman A. Promoting the implementation of evidence-based practice: a literature review focusing on the role of nursing leadership. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2011;8:212–23.Google Scholar

  • 44.

    Makitalo O, Liikanen E. Improving quality at the preanalytical phase of blood sampling: literature review. Int J Biomed Lab Sci 2013;2:7–16.Google Scholar

  • 45.

    Mittman BS, Tonesk X, Jacobson PD. Implementing clinical practice guidelines: social influence strategies and practitioner behavior change. Qual Rev Bull 1992;18:413.Google Scholar

  • 46.

    Williams AB. Adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy. Nurs Clin North Am 1999;34:113–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 47.

    Lenicek KJ. Nationwide survey of policies and practices related to capillary blood sampling in medical laboratories in Croatia. Biochem Med 2014;24:350–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 48.

    Dukic L, Simundic AM. Institutional practices and policies in acid-base testing: a self reported Croatian survey study on behalf of the Croatian society of medical biochemistry and laboratory medicine Working Group for acid-base balance. Biochem Med 2014;24:281–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 49.

    Bolenius K, Brulin C, Grankvist K, Lindkvist M, Söderberg J. A content validated questionnaire for self-reported venous blood sampling practices. BMC Res Notes 2012;5:39.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 50.

    Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM. How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci 2011;6:26.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 51.

    Fink R, Thompson CJ, Bonnes D. Overcoming barriers and promoting the use of research in practice. J Nurs Adm 2005;35:121–9.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 52.

    Ploeg J, Davies B, Edwards N, Gifford W, Miller PE. Factors influencing best-practice guideline implementation: lessons learned from administrators, nursing staff, and project leaders. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2007;4:210–9.Google Scholar

  • 53.

    Grol RP, Bosch MC, Hulscher ME, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q 2007;85:93–138.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 54.

    Foy R, Ovretveit J, Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Taylor SL, Dy S, et al. The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices. Br Med J Qual Saf 2011;20:453–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 55.

    Allegranzi B, Gayet-Ageron A, Damani N, Bengaly L, McLaws ML, Moro ML, et al. Global implementation of WHO’s multimodal strategy for improvement of hand hygiene: a quasi-experimental study. Lancet Infect Dis 2013;13:843–51.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Ana-Maria Simundic, Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Center, University Department of Chemistry, Vinogradska 29, Zagreb 10000, Croatia, Phone: +385 1 3768 280, Fax: +385 1 3768 280, E-mail: ; and European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)


Received: 2014-10-27

Accepted: 2014-10-28

Published Online: 2014-12-23

Published in Print: 2015-08-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 53, Issue 9, Pages 1321–1331, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-1053.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Ana-Maria Simundic, Geoffrey Baird, Janne Cadamuro, Seán J. Costelloe, and Giuseppe Lippi
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2019, Page 1
[2]
Lina Gyllencreutz, Ida Pedersen, Elisabeth Enarsson, Britt-Inger Saveman, and Karin Bölenius
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 2019, Page 1
[3]
Claudia Bellini, Roberto Guerranti, Francesca Cinci, Eva Milletti, and Carlo Scapellato
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2019, Page 001872081987490
[4]
Michael Cornes
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2019, Page 000456321986798
[5]
Michael Cornes, Ana-Maria Simundic, Barbara de la Salle, Gunn B.B. Kristensen, Joao Tiago Guimaraes, Kjell Grankvist, Pieter Vermeersch, Mads Nybo, Edmee van Dongen – Lases, Mercedes Ibarz, Alexander von Meyer, Giuseppe Lippi, and Janne Cadamuro
Biochemia medica, 2019, Volume 29, Number 2, Page 322
[6]
Marilena Stamouli, Antonia Mourtzikou, Petros L Karkalousos, Zoe Athanasiadou, Evaggelia Marasidi, and ANASTASIOS SKLIRIS
International Journal of Reliable and Quality E-Healthcare, 2019, Volume 8, Number 3, Page 22
[7]
Mercedes Ibarz and Rubén Gómez-Rioja
Revista del Laboratorio Clínico, 2019, Volume 12, Number 2, Page 61
[8]
Eva Rabing Brix Petersen and Mads Nybo
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2018, Volume 78, Number 5, Page 417
[9]
Henrik Hjelmgren, Anna Nilsson, Nina Andersson-Papadogiannakis, Carina Ritzmo, Britt-Marie Ygge, and Björn Nordlund
Acta Paediatrica, 2018
[10]
Peter J Selby, Rosamonde E Banks, Walter Gregory, Jenny Hewison, William Rosenberg, Douglas G Altman, Jonathan J Deeks, Christopher McCabe, Julie Parkes, Catharine Sturgeon, Douglas Thompson, Maureen Twiddy, Janine Bestall, Joan Bedlington, Tilly Hale, Jacqueline Dinnes, Marc Jones, Andrew Lewington, Michael P Messenger, Vicky Napp, Alice Sitch, Sudeep Tanwar, Naveen S Vasudev, Paul Baxter, Sue Bell, David A Cairns, Nicola Calder, Neil Corrigan, Francesco Del Galdo, Peter Heudtlass, Nick Hornigold, Claire Hulme, Michelle Hutchinson, Carys Lippiatt, Tobias Livingstone, Roberta Longo, Matthew Potton, Stephanie Roberts, Sheryl Sim, Sebastian Trainor, Matthew Welberry Smith, James Neuberger, Douglas Thorburn, Paul Richardson, John Christie, Neil Sheerin, William McKane, Paul Gibbs, Anusha Edwards, Naeem Soomro, Adebanji Adeyoju, Grant D Stewart, and David Hrouda
Programme Grants for Applied Research, 2018, Volume 6, Number 3, Page 1
[11]
Benoit Dugué, Giovanni Lombardi, and Giuseppe Banfi
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2018, Page 1
[12]
Lisa A. Spacek, Arthur Strzepka, Saurabh Saha, Jonathan Kotula, Jeffrey Gelb, Sarah Guilmain, Terence Risby, and Steven F. Solga
Scientific Reports, 2018, Volume 8, Number 1
[13]
Qian Cai, Yunxian Zhou, and Dangan Yang
Biochemia Medica, 2018, Volume 28, Number 1
[14]
Michael Cornes
Biochemia Medica, 2017, Volume 27, Number 2, Page 426
[15]
Giuseppe Lippi and Gianfranco Cervellin
Biochemia Medica, 2017, Volume 27, Number 2, Page 421
[16]
Gabriel Lima-Oliveira, Waldemar Volanski, Giuseppe Lippi, Geraldo Picheth, and Gian Cesare Guidi
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2017, Volume 77, Number 3, Page 153
[17]
Giuseppe Lippi, Camilla Mattiuzzi, Chiara Bovo, and Emmanuel J. Favaloro
Clinical Biochemistry, 2017, Volume 50, Number 10-11, Page 562
[18]
Michael P Cornes, Stephen Church, Edmée van Dongen-Lases, Kjell Grankvist, João T Guimarães, Mercedes Ibarz, Svetlana Kovalevskaya, Gunn BB Kristensen, Giuseppe Lippi, Mads Nybo, Ludek Sprongl, Zorica Sumarac, and Ana-Maria Simundic
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 2016, Volume 53, Number 5, Page 539

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in