Abstract
Improving specimen quality as well as healthcare worker (HCW) safety poses significant concerns for today’s laboratories. With an increasing number of diagnostic tests requested, laboratory professionals are faced with challenges to reduce laboratory errors, improve the quality of laboratory results to assure accurate diagnosis and implement initiatives to ensure healthcare worker safety and minimize risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens. A prior study conducted in 2008 reported that variations in blood collection methods for clinical chemistry assays may affect overall specimen quality. As a follow up, the current study assessed the quality of 22563 patient specimens for cell counting in EDTA blood collection tubes that were obtained with needle and syringe collection (open) using either disposable tubes or re-washed glass vials or with an evacuated blood collection system (closed). Based on the observations, the use of the evacuated blood collection system resulted in better preanalytical specimen quality as compared with needle and syringe collection. The findings also showed an approximately 70-fold reduction in the incidence of clotting as well as fewer instrument-generated flags using the evacuated collection system. In addition, the use of an evacuated collection system for venous blood collection demonstrated lesser chance of blood exposure to healthcare workers.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ricos C, Garcia-Victoria M, de la Fuente B. Quality indicators and specifications for the extra-analytical phases in clinical laboratory management. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42: 578–582.
Tammen H. Specimen collection and handling: standardization of blood sample collection. Methods Mol Biol 2008; 428: 35–42.
Witte DL, VanNess SA, Angstadt DS, Pennell BJ. Errors, mistakes, blunders, outliers or unacceptable results: how many? Clin Chem 1997; 43: 1352–1356.
Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2002; 48(5): 691–698.
Plebani M, Carraro P. Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. Clin Chem 1997; 43: 1348–1351.
Lippi G, Bassi A, Brocco G, Montagnana M, Salvagno GL, Guidi GC. Preanalytic error tracking in a laboratory medicine department: results of a 1-year experience. Clin Chem 2006; 52: 1442–1443.
Lippi G, Fostini R, Guidi GC. Quality improvement in laboratory medicine: extra-analytical issues. Clin Lab Med 2008; 28: 285–294.
Alsina MJ, Alvarez V, Barba N, Bullich S, Cortes M, Escoda I, Martinez-Bru C. Preanalytical quality control program — an overview of results (2001–2005 summary). Clin Chem Lab Med 2008; 46(6): 849–854.
Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 1338–1342.
Ashavaid TF, Dandekar SP, Keny B, Bhambhwani VR. Influence of blood specimen collection method on various preanalytical sample quality indicators. Ind J Clin Biochem 2008; 23: 144–149.
CLSI Document H03-A5 Fifth Edition. Procedures for collection of diagnostic blood specimens by venipuncture; Approved standard. 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Summary of Universal Precautions. www.osha.gov.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ashavaid, T.F., Dandekar, S.P., Khodaiji, S. et al. Influence of method of specimen collection on various preanalytical sample quality indicators in EDTA blood collected for cell counting. Indian J Clin Biochem 24, 356–360 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-009-0064-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-009-0064-4