Cited by 69Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Patient identification and tube labelling – a call for harmonisation

Open access
van Dongen-Lases, Edmée C., Cornes, Michael P., Grankvist, Kjell, Ibarz, Mercedes, Kristensen, Gunn B.B., Lippi, Giuseppe, Nybo, Mads, Simundic, Ana-Maria +1 more·2016·Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Abstract

Venous blood sampling (phlebotomy) is the most common invasive procedure performed in patient care. Guidelines on the correct practice of phlebotomy are available, including the H3-A6 guideline issued by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). As the quality of practices and procedures related to venous blood sample collection in European countries was unknown, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase conducted an observational study in 12 European countries. The study demonstrated that the level of compliance of phlebotomy procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guideline was unacceptably low, and that patient identification and tube labelling are amongst the most critical steps in need of immediate attention and improvement. The process of patient identification and tube labelling is an essential safety barrier to prevent patient identity mix-up. Therefore, the EFLM Working Group aims to encourage and support worldwide harmonisation of patient identification and tube labelling procedures in order to reduce the risk of preanalytical errors and improve patient safety. With this Position paper we wish to raise awareness and provide recommendations for proper patient and sample identification procedures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/cclm-2015-1089

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Franchini M, Guidi GC. Phlebotomy issues and quality improvement in results of laboratory testing. Clin Lab 2006;52:217-30.
  2. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Guidi GC. Laboratory quality improvement by implementation of phlebotomy guidelines. Med Lab Obs 2006;38:6-7.
  3. Nikolac N, Supak-Smolcic V, Simundic AM, Celap I. Croatian Soci- ety of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine: national recommendations for venous blood sampling. Biochem Med 2013;23:242-54.
  4. Lippi G, Caputo M, Banfi G, Buttarello M, Ceriotti F, Daves M, et al. Recommendations for collection of venous blood. Biochim Clin 2008;32:569-77.
  5. Simundic AM, Church S, Cornes MP, Grankvist K, Lippi G, Nybo M, et al. Compliance of blood sampling procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines: An observational study by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PRE). Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1321-31.
  6. Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of iden- tification errors in laboratory diagnostics. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:143-53.
  7. Grecu DS, Vlad DC, Dumitrascu V. Quality indicators in the preanalytical phase of testing in a stat laboratory. Lab Med 2014;45:74-81.
  8. Atay A, Demir L, Cuhadar S, Saglam G, Unal H, Aksun S, et al. Clinical biochemistry laboratory rejection rates due to various types of preanalytical errors. Biochem Med 2014;24:376-82.
  9. Giménez-Marín A, Rivas-Ruiz F, del Mar Pérez-Hidalgo M, Molina-Mendoza P. Pre-analytical errors management in the clinical laboratory: a five-year study. Biochem Med 2014;24:248-57.
  10. Dukic L, Simundić AM. Institutional practices and policies in acid-base testing: a self reported Croatian survey study on behalf of the Croatian society of medical biochemistry and laboratory medicine Working Group for acid-base balance. Biochem Med 2014;24:281-92.
  11. Melkie M, Girma A, Tsalla T. The practice of venous blood collection among laboratory and non-laboratory professionals working in Ethiopian Government Hospitals: a comparative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:88.
  12. Valenstein PN, Raab SS, Walsh MK. Identification errors involv- ing clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:1106-13.
  13. Lippi G, Becan-McBride K, Behúlová D, Bowen RA, Church S, Delanghe J, et al. Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:229-41.
  14. Henneman PL, Fisher DL, Henneman EA, Pham TA, Mei YY, Talati R, et al. Providers do not verify patient identity during computer order entry. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:641-8.
  15. Schulmeister L. Patient misidentification in oncology care. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2008;12:495-8.
  16. Hawkins RC. Specimen labelling: before or after collection? Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:2119-20.
  17. Lippi G, Sonntag O, Plebani M. Appropriate labelling of blood collection tubes: a step ahead towards patient's safety. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1921-3.
  18. Morrison AP, Tanasijevic MJ, Goonan EM, Lobo MM, Bates MM, Lipsitz SR, et al. Reduction in specimen labeling errors after implementation of a positive patient identification system in phlebotomy. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:870-7.
  19. Bölenius K, Söderberg J, Hultdin J, Lindkvist M, Brulin C, Grankvist K. Minor improvement of venous blood specimen collection practices in primary health care after a large-scale educational intervention. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:303-10.
  20. Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Picheth G, Guidi GC. The effective reduction of tourniquet application time after minor modification of the CLSI H03-A6 blood collection procedure. Biochem Med 2013;23:308-15.
  21. Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Picheth G, Guidi GC. Impact of the phlebotomy training based on CLSI/NCCLS H03-a6-procedures for the collection of diagnostic blood specimens by venipuncture. Biochem Med 2012;22:342-51.
  22. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Chiozza ML. Harmonization of pre-analytical quality indicators. Biochem Med 2014;24:105-13.
  23. Plebani M, Astion ML, Barth JH, Chen W, de Oliveira Galoro CA, Escuer MI et al. Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:951-8.
  24. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Pelloso M, Chiozza ML. Performance criteria and quality indicators for the pre-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:943-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Dongen-Lases, E. C., Cornes, M. P., Grankvist, K., Ibarz, M., Kristensen, G. B. B., Lippi, G., Nybo, M., Simundic, A.-M., & on behalf of the Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-P
Affiliations
  • Department of Clinical Chemistry, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • New Cross Hospital (GB)
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • Laboratori Clínic Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida, Spain
  • Norwegian Clinical Chemistry EQA Programme, Bergen, Norway
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Odense University Hospital (DK)
  • University Hospital Sveti Duh, Department of Medical Laboratory Diagnostics, Sveti Duh 64, Zagreb 10000, Croatia
Venue
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
54
Issue
7
Pages
1141-1145
ISSN
  • 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1437-4331
OpenAlex
W2417682703
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
patient identification, phlebotomy, pre-analytical phase, pre-analytical errors, patient safety, venous blood sampling, specimen identification
MeSH terms
Blood Specimen Collection, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Laboratories, Hospital, Patient Identification Systems, Quality Control, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review