Multidisciplinary training activities for decreasing preanalytical mistakes in samples from primary care

Abstract

Although the presence of PM remains slightly high, there was a significant reduction after the clinical update sessions in LAB1, where the most frequent PM was haemolysed sample. In contrast, the PM rates were slightly increased at LAB2, and the main source was missed sample. This might be explained, at least in part, by different problems associated with sample transportation, and by the delay in transferring acquired knowledge into clinical practice. Implementation of regular programme of update sessions and improvements in sample transportation might help to reduce the PM presence in our area.

The impact of venepuncture training on the reduction of pre‐analytical blood sample haemolysis rates: A systematic review

“…Low preinterventional HR (0.2%–10%) was observed in the studies conducted in Europe, n = 5 (Bolenius et al, ; Cadamuro et al, ; Romero et al, , ; Yazar et al, ), in comparison with Ong et al (), an Asian study (19.8%). However, Corkill (), an Australian study, reported no baseline rate.…”

“…Three involved multiple pre‐analytical errors (i.e., rate of clotted and insufficient samples and impact on use of quality labels) besides haemolysis rate (Lillo et al, ). Similarly, Romero et al () and Romero et al () had multiple outcomes (i.e., missed sample, incorrect volume) and haemolysis rate. One study (Ong et al, ) was clear on the study limitation (Table ).…”

“…The majority of the studies ( n = 6) were from Europe; Spain (Lillo et al, ; Romero et al, , ); Turkey (Yazar et al, ); Austria (Cadamuro et al, ); and Sweden (Bolenius et al, ). The remaining 2 were from Australia (Corkill, ) and Singapore (Ong, Chan, & Lim, ; Ong et al, ).…”

“…The majority of the studies ( n = 6) samples staff involved in the conduct of venepuncture. These included registered and enrolled nurses and laboratory technicians (Bolenius et al, ); junior doctors and nurses (Cadamuro et al, ); doctors and medical students (Ong et al, ); nurses and phlebotomists (Romero et al, ); nurses, physicians, auxiliary and administrative staff (Romero et al, ); and phlebotomists, nurses, paramedics and other unspecified relevant personnel (Yazar et al, ). Corkill () involved emergency department (ED) staff, with no specific details.…”

“…Both the visual dictation absorbance method (score 1–6) and a set threshold of fHb (250 mg/L) were used in Romero et al (); however, there was no meaning given to the scores. In contrast, Corkill () used similar system (0–10+) with benchmark set at HI > 3; similarly, no corresponding scale for fHb was given.…”