ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Integrating narrative medicine into laboratory quality improvement: a sustainable model for reducing coagulation specimen rejections.
Article in Implementation science communications, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPre-analytical errors, particularly specimen rejections due to insufficient volume, represent a persistent challenge in coagulation testing, especially in oncology settings where patients often have compromised vascular access. Conventional quality improvement (QI) approaches frequently focus narrowly on procedural compliance and may inadvertently reinforce a punitive, blame-oriented culture between laboratory and nursing teams, thereby undermining systemic problem-solving. This study evaluated whether integrating narrative medicine principles into QI could reduce rejection rates while fostering a just culture grounded in empathy, shared accountability, and patient-centered learning.
methodsA longitudinal QI study using iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles was conducted at a large tertiary oncology hospital (Jan 2019-Nov 2025). Root-cause analysis identified a "culture of blame" as core drivers. A narrative medicine curriculum utilizing "parallel charts" to foster empathy and mutual understanding was implemented. Monthly coagulation specimen rejection rates were analyzed across three phases using non-parametric statistics and staff behavioral changes were monitored.
resultsRejection rates decreased by 98.6%, from a median of 1.862% (baseline) to 0.026% (optimization phase; p < 0.001). This reduction remained stable during a major staff rotation, indicating the resilience of this system. Qualitative feedback indicated that narrative reflection rebuilt trust and created a "just culture" focused on patient safety rather than individual blame.
conclusionsEmbedding narrative medicine in laboratory QI is a rigorous, evidence-informed strategy. By shifting the focus from technical compliance to human-centered understanding, healthcare systems may better bridge the gap between the laboratory and the clinic, and potentially achieve breakthroughs in 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.