Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735584
Improving the Quality of Venous Blood Sampling Procedure (Phlebotomy): Avoiding Tourniquet Use
Abstract
Background Phlebotomy guidelines discourage tourniquet use whenever possible. We assessed phlebotomists' capability of not using the tourniquet in venous blood sampling, hypothesizing it to be equal to 50% of the patients attended, and identifying the most frequent venipuncture site.
Materials and Methods We assigned two phlebotomists of the same age (41 years) and experience (20 years) to record 10 phlebotomy days, the first with prioritized and the latter with nonprioritized patients. Each acquired daily data for the number of attended patients, age, gender, frequency of nontourniquet usage, and punctured vein. To test our work hypothesis we used the two-tailed single sample t-test. Differences between age-group means and nontourniquet use means by each phlebotomist were tested by two-tailed t-test for independent means.
Results In 10 phlebotomy days, 683 patients were attended (males 43.2%). We found no statistically significant difference between age-group means. The combined capability of nontourniquet use was 50.5%, which did not differ from our null hypothesis, but the difference in individual group means was statistically significant, the means being 33% and 66.9% (prioritized vs. nonprioritized). The medial cubital vein was the most prone to be punctured (77.7%).
Conclusion Performing phlebotomies without tourniquet was possible in at least half of the attended patients, though it was more limited in specific group populations.
Keywords
tourniquet application - phlebotomy - venous blood sampling - guidelines - preanalytical phase - quality improvementAuthors' Contributions
FF and MA made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. They also drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content. They approved the version to be published. FF and MA participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. The manuscript is not under review of any other journal, and that it has not been published complete or partially in any other journal, though a previous version has already a DOI in medRxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.05.20039560).
# Both Francisco Freitas and Mónica Alves are currently biomedical scientists at the Clinical Pathology Service, Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu, Viseu, Portugal.
Publication History
Article published online:
22 September 2021
© 2021. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Simundic AM, Bölenius K, Cadamuro J. et al; 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. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018; 56 (12) 2015-2038
- 2 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. GP41: Procedures for the Collection of Diagnostic Blood Specimens by Venipuncture; Approved Standard—Seventh Edition. CLSI document GP41–A7.. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017
- 3 Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL. et al. Venous stasis and whole blood platelet aggregometry: a question of data reliability and patient safety. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2015; 26 (06) 665-668
- 4 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 (Zagreb) 2013; 23 (03) 308-315
- 5 Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL. 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 (Zagreb) 2011; 21 (02) 152-159
- 6 Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Brocco G, Guidi GC. Influence of short-term venous stasis on clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005; 43 (08) 869-875
- 7 Phelan MP, Reineks EZ, Schold JD, Hustey FM, Chamberlin J, Procop GW. Preanalytic factors associated with hemolysis in emergency department blood samples. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2018; 142 (02) 229-235
- 8 McCaughey EJ, Vecellio E, Lake R. et al. Key factors influencing the incidence of hemolysis: a critical appraisal of current evidence. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2017; 54 (01) 59-72
- 9 Ohnishi H. How to prevent phlebotomy-related nerve injury. Rinsho Byori 2007; 55 (03) 251-256
- 10 Mukai K, Nakajima Y, Nakano T. et al. Safety of venipuncture sites at the cubital fossa as assessed by ultrasonography. J Patient Saf 2020; 16 (01) 98-105
- 11 Lippi G, Avanzini P, Aloe R, Cervellin G. Blood collection from intravenous lines: is one drawing site better than others?. Lab Med 2014; 45 (02) 172-175
- 12 Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Picheth G, Guidi GC. Laboratory diagnostics and quality of blood collection. J Med Biochem 2015; 34 (03) 288-294
- 13 Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL. et al. Transillumination: a new tool to eliminate the impact of venous stasis during the procedure for the collection of diagnostic blood specimens for routine haematological testing. Int J Lab Hematol 2011; 33 (05) 457-462