ArticleCureus2026
Audit of Group and Save Sample Rejection in Fractured Neck of Femur Patients at a United Kingdom District Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate preoperative blood grouping and antibody screening are critical for trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) surgery. Group and Save (G&S) samples are frequently rejected due to labelling discrepancies, incomplete documentation, or sample quality issues. Such rejections delay surgery, increase patient discomfort from repeated venepuncture, and generate avoidable financial and operational burdens. This audit assessed the frequency, underlying causes, and financial implications of rejected GS samples for T&O patients in the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department and developed targeted recommendations to minimise error rates.
methodsA retrospective clinical audit was conducted at the Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom, encompassing all patients admitted with neck of femur (NOF) fractures between September 2024 and March 2025. Laboratory information system data and request forms were reviewed to identify rejected samples, categorise causes of rejection, and determine the staff group responsible for collection. Cost estimates were calculated using the hospital's local pathology finance reports. A follow-up re-audit was conducted after implementing the initial audit's recommendations, from July to October 2025.
resultsOf 171 G&S samples, 64 (37.4%) were rejected. The majority (62.5%, n=40) were taken by A&E staff. Predominant causes were absent signatures, missing date/time, mismatched identifiers, and sample integrity issues (haemolysis/underfilling). Approximately 20% (n=13) of affected patients required ≥2 repeat samples. The direct cost per rejected sample ranged from £12 to £80. After interventions, a re-audit of 84 samples showed the rejection rate fell to 16.6% (n=14).
conclusionsSample rejection in A&E is a preventable source of perioperative inefficiency. Most errors stemmed from documentation/labelling lapses. Implementing standardised bedside labelling, electronic order validation, and mandatory competency refreshers supported by a G&S checklist substantially reduced rejection rates. These measures optimise workflow, reduce costs, and enhance patient safety.
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.