ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2013
Getting the basics right: delays in phlebotomy and intravenous cannulation: a survey of foundation year 1 doctors.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A standardised storage solution for venepuncture/cannulation equipment could save an NHS hospital the equivalent of a whole junior doctor.BMJ quality improvement reports · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Junior doctors frequently experience delays in routine ward-based procedures. There is little published data on this subject, but it is clear that such delays can have implications in terms of costs, efficiency, length of patient stay, team working and patient safety and experience. We formulated an anonymous online survey to quantify the experiences of foundation year 1 (FY1) doctors with respect to phlebotomy services and intravenous (IV) cannulation. We gathered data on equipment availability, time taken to carry out these tasks and the factors thought to contribute to delays. The results were compared to clinically relevant standards. Between April and August 2012, 199 responses were received. For IV cannulation, 21% of doctors reported equipment availability as 'very good', but only 3% said that they were able to find all of the pieces of equipment they needed close to each other ('essentially in the same place'). Similar results were obtained for phlebotomy. Nevertheless, there appears to be significant room for improvement and we offer recommendations to address delays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.