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.
