These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Three alternative structural configurations for phlebotomy: a comparison of effectiveness.
    Author: Mannion H, Nadder T.
    Journal: Clin Lab Sci; 2007; 20(4):210-4. PubMed ID: 18069445.
    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). found to be more effective when compared to the decentralized configuration.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]