Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42656869›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2026

Navigating communication barriers in phlebotomy: Strategies and ethical tensions in routine care.

Selina Diep, Lisa Purdy, Amanda VanSpronsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Selina DiepDivision of Medical Laboratory Science, Dianne and Irving Kipnes Health Research Academy, University of Alberta, Canada.
Lisa PurdyDivision of Medical Laboratory Science, Dianne and Irving Kipnes Health Research Academy, University of Alberta, Canada.
Amanda VanSpronsenDivision of Medical Laboratory Science, Dianne and Irving Kipnes Health Research Academy, University of Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The emotional and ethical experiences of Medical Laboratory Assistants (MLAs) during challenging patient phlebotomy encounters is largely unknown. This study identified verbal and non-verbal strategies used by MLAs and explored how they navigate systemic and interpersonal pressures during patient resistance. Methods: We held four online focus groups with 12 MLAs working in hospital and community settings in Alberta, Canada. Transcripts were analyzed using a combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis guided by the Framework method. Results: Participants described using plain-language explanations, distraction, translation resources, and support to facilitate phlebotomy involving pediatric patients, cognitive impairment, and language barriers. When these strategies failed, restraint was described as a last resort. These accounts suggest that escalation occurred within perceived constraints on authority and under pressure, rather than a preferred course of action. Conclusion: Phlebotomy communication challenges are ethically and relationally complex. MLAs describe balancing procedural demands with patient assent under conditions of limited authority, suggesting a need for training and guidance that extends beyond technical proficiency. Innovation: This study moves beyond the traditional technical view of phlebotomy by examining the ethical and relational challenges experienced by MLAs during routine patient care. It identifies experiences consistent with moral distress and constrained clinical agency as underexplored features of communication barriers in phlebotomy practice.

Indexed as

CommunicationMedical laboratory professionalsPhlebotomy

Identifiers

PMID42656869
PMCPMC13507531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.