ArticleBMC nursing2025
Evaluation of specimen rejection rates in the preanalytical phase and nurses' experiences: a mixed design study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. 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.
- 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
- Types and frequency of preanalytical errors occurring in the hematology laboratory at Debre Tabor comprehensive specialized hospital, North Central, Ethiopia, 2025.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pre-analytical errors during HIV viral load (HIV-VL) and early infant diagnosis (EID) testing in Cameroon.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe preanalytical phase is considered the most error-prone part of laboratory testing and significantly contributes to medical errors. Specimen rejections during this phase can delay diagnosis and treatment, compromise patient safety, and increase healthcare costs. Understanding the causes of these rejections is essential for quality improvement.
objectivesThis study aimed to determine specimen rejection rates during the preanalytical phase and to explore nurses' experiences related to these rejections.
methodsA mixed-methods design was used. In the quantitative phase, one-year retrospective data were collected from the microbiology and biochemistry laboratories of a university hospital. In the qualitative phase, individual in-depth interviews were conducted with nurses working in clinics with the highest rejection rates. Thematic analysis was used to evaluate qualitative data.
resultsA total of 14,290 specimens were rejected in the biochemistry laboratory and 4,220 in the microbiology laboratory. The most frequent reasons for rejection were insufficient volume, hemolysis, and coagulation. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: [1] challenges in the preanalytical process [2], contributing factors to errors, and [3] emotional impact on nurses. Nurses highlighted issues such as lack of institutional support, inadequate training, patient cooperation difficulties, communication gaps, and stressful work environments. Emotional consequences included frustration, fatigue, and anxiety.
conclusionPreanalytical errors result from a combination of institutional, interpersonal, and environmental factors. These errors not only affect lab performance but also harm nurses' psychological well-being. Interventions should aim to improve workflow, enhance training, and offer emotional support to reduce rejection rates and promote patient safety. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.