期刊
ANNALS OF CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 562-565出版社
ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/acb.2011.011099
关键词
-
Background: Phlebotomy is a potential cause of preanalytical errors. We have observed phlebotomy in routine practice in a busy Emergency Department, to see how current practice compares with optimal blood sampling. Methods: Phlebotomy episodes were audited and compared with standard procedures. A computer-based search of the number of haemolysed samples from Emergency Medicine and hospital inpatients was reviewed. Results: Four different ways of taking blood were observed: cannulation and a syringe (38%), cannula with evacuated tube and adaptor (42%), syringe and needle into vein (14%) and evacuated tube system used conventionally (6%). Where a syringe was used, two methods of transfer into the sample tube were observed; needle kept on with cap piercing (77%) and needle and evacuated cap both removed (23%). On 20 out of 50 phlebotomy episodes (40%), the potassium-EDTA tube was filled prior to the biochemistry serum gel tube. A search of the laboratory computer records for ward-based phlebotomy found 30 of 1034 samples were haemolysed (2.9%). In the 50 phlebotomy episodes in the Majors area of the Emergency Department, 24% produced a haemolysed sample (P < 0.0001). For samples taken from all areas of Emergency Medicine over a seven-day period, 52 of 485 were haemolysed (10.7%; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: This study has shown that phlebotomy techniques in the Emergency Department deviate from standard practice significantly. This may well be a reason for the much higher frequency of haemolysed samples and with the wrong order of collection the possibility of potassium-EDTA-contaminated samples.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据