Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Improving the quality of venous blood sampling procedure (phlebotomy): avoiding tourniquet use

View ORCID ProfileFrancisco Freitas, Mónica Alves
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.05.20039560
Francisco Freitas
1Microbiology Laboratory, Clinical Pathology Service, Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu, Viseu, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Francisco Freitas
  • For correspondence: francyske@gmail.com
Mónica Alves
2Central Laboratory, Clinical Pathology Service, Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu, Viseu, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Guidelines for venous blood sampling procedure (phlebotomy) discourage tourniquet use whenever possible. Here, we aimed to assess the Biomedical Scientists capability of not using the tourniquet in phlebotomy, which we hypothesized to be equal to 50% of the patients attended, and identifying the most frequent venipuncture site.

Materials and Methods We selected and assigned two (BMS) with the same age (41 years) and experience (20 years) to record ten phlebotomy days, the first with prioritized and the latter with non-prioritized patients. In a simple record form, each acquired daily data for the number of attended patients, age and gender, the frequency of non-tourniquet usage and the punctured vein. To test our work hypothesis we used the two-tailed single sample t-test (p < 0.05). Differences between age-group means and non-tourniquet use means by each BMS were tested by two-tailed t-test for independent means (p < 0.05).

Results In 10 phlebotomy days 683 patients were attended, with males representing 43,2% of the population. We found no statistically difference between age-group means. The combined capability of non-tourniquet use was 50,5%, which did not differ from our null hypothesis, but the individual group-means were statistically different, being 33% and 66.9% in the prioritized vs non-prioritized group. The medial cubital vein was the most prone to be punctured (77,7%).

Conclusions We have shown that performing phlebotomies without tourniquet use is possible and desirable in at least half of the attended patients, though being more limited in specific group populations. Our results provide room for quality improvement in the laboratory pre-analytical phase.

Key points summary We assessed the capability of Biomedical Scientists not using the tourniquet in real life blood sampling procedures for diagnostic purposes.

Blood was collected from at least half of the attended patients without tourniquet use.

Biomedical Scientists were able to prioritize the antecubital veins without tourniquet application (medial cubital vein the most prone to be punctured - 78% of attempts).

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No funding.

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Updated structure, introduction and tables.

Data Availability

All data is readilly available.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 20, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving the quality of venous blood sampling procedure (phlebotomy): avoiding tourniquet use
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Improving the quality of venous blood sampling procedure (phlebotomy): avoiding tourniquet use
Francisco Freitas, Mónica Alves
medRxiv 2020.04.05.20039560; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.05.20039560
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Improving the quality of venous blood sampling procedure (phlebotomy): avoiding tourniquet use
Francisco Freitas, Mónica Alves
medRxiv 2020.04.05.20039560; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.05.20039560

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (162)
  • Allergy and Immunology (416)
  • Anesthesia (91)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (863)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (159)
  • Dermatology (98)
  • Emergency Medicine (251)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (394)
  • Epidemiology (8571)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (388)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1758)
  • Geriatric Medicine (167)
  • Health Economics (373)
  • Health Informatics (1249)
  • Health Policy (622)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (468)
  • Hematology (196)
  • HIV/AIDS (378)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10318)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (553)
  • Medical Education (192)
  • Medical Ethics (51)
  • Nephrology (213)
  • Neurology (1681)
  • Nursing (97)
  • Nutrition (252)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (328)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (451)
  • Oncology (930)
  • Ophthalmology (264)
  • Orthopedics (102)
  • Otolaryngology (172)
  • Pain Medicine (114)
  • Palliative Medicine (40)
  • Pathology (253)
  • Pediatrics (538)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (254)
  • Primary Care Research (209)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1775)
  • Public and Global Health (3853)
  • Radiology and Imaging (626)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (320)
  • Respiratory Medicine (521)
  • Rheumatology (208)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (168)
  • Sports Medicine (158)
  • Surgery (191)
  • Toxicology (36)
  • Transplantation (101)
  • Urology (76)