Three Alternative Structural Configurations for Phlebotomy: A Comparison of Effectiveness

Heidi Mannion; Teresa Nadder

doi:10.29074/ascls.20.4.210

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Heidi Mannion, PhD MT (ASCP)⇑
1. is associate professor and program director, Department of Medical Technology, University of Alaska Anchorage
Teresa Nadder, PhD CLS (NCA)
1. is associate professor and chair, Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, Virginia Commonwealth University

Address for correspondence: Heidi Mannion PhD MT (ASCP), associate professor and program director, Department of Medical Technology, University of Alaska Anchorage, AHS 172, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage AK 99508. (907) 786-6924, (907) 786-6938 (fax). afham{at}uaa.alaska.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of three alternative structural configurations for inpatient phlebotomy. It was hypothesized that decentralized was less effective when compared to centralized inpatient phlebotomy.

DESIGN: A non-experimental prospective survey design was conducted at the institution level. Laboratory managers completed an organizational survey and collected data on inpatient blood specimens during a 30-day data collection period.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A random sample (n =31) of hospitals with onsite laboratories in the United States was selected from a database purchased from the Joint Commission on Accreditations of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Effectiveness of the blood collection process was measured by the percentage of specimens rejected during the data collection period.

RESULTS: Analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference in the percentage of specimens rejected for centralized, hybrid, and decentralized phlebotomy configurations [F (2, 28) = 4.27, p = .02] with an effect size of .23. Post-hoc comparison using Tukey's HSD indicated that mean percentage of specimens rejected for centralized phlebotomy (M = .045, SD = 0.36) was significantly different from the decentralized configuration (M = 1.42, SD = 0.92, p = .03).

CONCLUSION: Phlebotomy configuration has a significant effect on the percentage of specimens rejected. Based on this outcome, the centralized phlebotomy configuration was found to be more effective when compared to the decentralized configuration.

ABBREVIATIONS: ANOVA = analysis of variance; JCAHO = Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; Tukey's HSD = Tukey's honestly significant different; LSD = least significant difference; M = mean; SD = standard deviation