Elisa Piva1, Francesca Tosato2, Mario Plebani3. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128 Padova, Italy. Electronic address: elisa.piva@sanita.padova.it. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128 Padova, Italy. Electronic address: francesca.tosato@sanita.padova.it. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128 Padova, Italy. Electronic address: mario.plebani@unipd.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most errors in laboratory medicine occur in the pre-analytical phase of the total testing process. Phlebotomy, a crucial step in the pre-analytical phase influencing laboratory results and patient outcome, calls for quality assurance procedures and automation in order to prevent errors and ensure patient safety. METHODS: We compared the performance of a new small, automated device, the ProTube Inpeco, designed for use in phlebotomy with a complete traceability of the process, with a centralized automated system, BC ROBO. RESULTS: ProTube was used for 15,010 patients undergoing phlebotomy with 48,776 tubes being labeled. The mean time and standard deviation (SD) for blood sampling was 3:03 (min:sec; SD ± 1:24) when using ProTube, against 5:40 (min:sec; SD ± 1:57) when using BC ROBO. The mean number of patients per hour managed at each phlebotomy point was 16 ± 3 with ProTube, and 10 ± 2 with BC ROBO. No tubes were labeled erroneously or incorrectly, even if process failure occurred in 2.8% of cases when ProTube was used. CONCLUSIONS: Thanks to its cutting edge technology, the ProTube has many advantages over BC ROBO, above all in verifying patient identity, and in allowing a reduction in both identification error and tube mislabeling.
BACKGROUND: Most errors in laboratory medicine occur in the pre-analytical phase of the total testing process. Phlebotomy, a crucial step in the pre-analytical phase influencing laboratory results and patient outcome, calls for quality assurance procedures and automation in order to prevent errors and ensure patient safety. METHODS: We compared the performance of a new small, automated device, the ProTube Inpeco, designed for use in phlebotomy with a complete traceability of the process, with a centralized automated system, BC ROBO. RESULTS: ProTube was used for 15,010 patients undergoing phlebotomy with 48,776 tubes being labeled. The mean time and standard deviation (SD) for blood sampling was 3:03 (min:sec; SD ± 1:24) when using ProTube, against 5:40 (min:sec; SD ± 1:57) when using BC ROBO. The mean number of patients per hour managed at each phlebotomy point was 16 ± 3 with ProTube, and 10 ± 2 with BC ROBO. No tubes were labeled erroneously or incorrectly, even if process failure occurred in 2.8% of cases when ProTube was used. CONCLUSIONS: Thanks to its cutting edge technology, the ProTube has many advantages over BC ROBO, above all in verifying patient identity, and in allowing a reduction in both identification error and tube mislabeling.