ArticleBiochemia medica2020
Quality improvement project: Reducing non-conformities of the samples for haemostasis testing in a secondary healthcare centre through the nurses' education in phlebotomy.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Pre-Analytical Performance Using IFCC Quality Indicators, Six Sigma Metrics and Root Cause Analysis in a Biochemistry Laboratory-A Retrospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Best practices in sample management & pre-analytical quality control: overcoming challenges in resource-limited laboratory settings.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Review
- A survey on the practice of phlebotomy in Lithuania and adherence to the EFLM-COLABIOCLI recommendations: continuous training and clear standard operating procedures as tools for better quality.Biochemia medica · 2024Article
- Design, Development, and Evaluation of the Blood Collection Management Workstation.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPoor compliance to the current guidelines and lack of knowledge among nurses about proper blood sampling is set as the study hypothesis. Here is presented a quality improvement project with following aims: a) to identify the most prevalent non-conformity of the samples for haemostasis testing, b) to identify the cause of sample non-conformity, c) to perform corrective action(s) and d) to assess the effectiveness of the corrective action(s). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe rate of non-conformity of samples collected for haemostasis tests was established for hospital wards with inpatients. Phlebotomy practice was audited throughout anonymous questionnaire among hospital's nurses who perform phlebotomy. Education about blood sampling was performed as a 1-hour lecture in different small groups each working day within one month. Education effectiveness was assessed through the evaluation of sample quality and is considered effective if more than half of the hospital wards significantly reduced their sample non-conformities rate.
resultsClotted sample constituted 84% of sample non-conformities. The questionnaire revealed nurses' poor knowledge in phlebotomy. There was no difference in nurses' knowledge regarding the level of education or work experience. Reduction in sample non-conformities was observed in 7 out of 9 wards 4 months after education; this improvement was statistically significant for 5 wards.
conclusionClotted sample as the most prevalent non-conformity of the samples for haemostasis testing is caused by the lack of knowledge of the nurses in several parts of the phlebotomy process. Specific education of the motivated personnel in small groups was successful and long-term effective.
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.