Lowe Glynnis, Stike Rose, Pollack Marc, Bosley Jenny, O'Brien Patti, Hake Amy, Landis Greta, Billings Natalie, Gordon Pam, Manzella Steve, Stover Tina
Department of Emergency Medicine, York Hospital, York, PA 17405, USA.
J Emerg Nurs. 2008 Feb;34(1):26-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2007.02.006. Epub 2007 Sep 25.
Re-collection of hemolyzed blood specimens delays patient care in overcrowded emergency departments. Our emergency department was unable to meet a benchmark of a 2% hemolysis rate for the collection of blood samples. Our hypothesis was that hemolysis rates of blood specimens differ dependent on the blood collection technique by venipuncture or intravenous catheter draw.
A prospective, cross-over study of blood collection techniques in a 64,000 annual visit, community teaching hospital emergency department was conducted. Eleven experienced registered nurses with more than 2 years' ED experience completed a standardized phlebotomy retraining session. Registered nurses were randomly assigned to collect samples via intravenous catheters or venipuncture. After nurses collected 70 samples, they then collected samples via the other method. A standardized data collection form was completed. Blood samples were processed and assessed for hemolysis using standard procedures by laboratory technicians who were blinded to the collection method.
A total of 853 valid samples were collected; 355 samples (41.6%) were drawn via venipuncture and 498 samples (58.4%) were drawn through an intravenous catheter. Of these, 28 intravenous catheter samples (5.6%) were found to be hemolyzed, whereas only 1 venipuncture sample (0.3%) was hemolyzed. This finding was significant (x2 < 0.001).
Experienced ED nurses can reduce the number of hemolyzed specimens by collecting via venipuncture instead of through intravenous catheters. This practice should be considered as standard of care in the ED setting.
Total samples by nurse were affected by EMS patients arriving with existing intravenous lines, and nurse schedules affected total samples per nurse.
重新采集溶血的血液标本会延误急诊室人满为患情况下的患者治疗。我们的急诊科无法达到血液样本采集2%溶血率的基准。我们的假设是,血液标本的溶血率因静脉穿刺或经静脉导管采血的采血技术不同而有所差异。
在一家年就诊量达64000人次的社区教学医院急诊科,对采血技术进行了一项前瞻性交叉研究。11名有超过2年急诊科工作经验的注册护士完成了标准化静脉穿刺再培训课程。注册护士被随机分配通过静脉导管或静脉穿刺采集样本。护士采集70个样本后,再通过另一种方法采集样本。完成一份标准化数据收集表。实验室技术人员采用标准程序对血样进行处理和溶血评估,他们对采集方法不知情。
共采集了853份有效样本;355份样本(41.6%)通过静脉穿刺采集,498份样本(58.4%)通过静脉导管采集。其中,28份经静脉导管采集的样本(5.6%)被发现溶血,而只有1份静脉穿刺样本(0.3%)溶血。这一发现具有显著性(x2<0.001)。
经验丰富的急诊科护士通过静脉穿刺而非经静脉导管采集样本,可以减少溶血样本的数量。这种做法应被视为急诊科的护理标准。
护士采集的样本总量受到已有静脉通路的急救患者的影响,护士排班也影响每位护士采集的样本总量。