Neonatal Capillary Blood Sampling Procedure: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND

Neonatal capillary blood sampling is common and painful, but procedural elements (eg, warming) appear inconsistent, with the impact on sampling effectiveness and procedural best practice unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To identify existing procedural practices and knowledge gaps to inform best practice for neonatal capillary blood sampling and guide procedural use in future research.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology was used, with sources including peer-reviewed articles between 2005 and 2025 from PubMed, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO host), and Cochrane Library, focused on the neonatal population. Screening was completed in Covidence by 2 independent authors (third for conflicts) and extracted into Airtable with results reported descriptively.

RESULTS

Of the 2846 articles identified, 73 met criteria, originating predominantly from the European region (n = 36). Most were randomized controlled trials (n = 47), followed by observational studies (n = 9) and expert opinion (n = 6). Primary outcomes reported (n = 63/73) were predominantly pain assessments (n = 46) and blood sample quality (n = 14). Procedural practices were inconsistently reported across articles-eg, decontamination (33/73 [45%]), supportive care (38/73 [52%]), and lancing device type used (40/73 [55%]). Within articles reporting roles (n = 60/73), nurses/midwives were commonly the proceduralist (n = 30 [50%]), followed by a comforter role (n = 14 [23%]), in addition to parents (n = 20 [33%]). Successful procedural characteristics (12/73) were reported as (1) sufficient blood (1 puncture/incision; n = 5), (2) minimal squeezing/free-flowing blood droplets (n = 3), (3) no hemolysis/adequate blood (n = 2), (4) no hemolysis/free-flowing blood (n = 1), and (5) minimal squeezing/procedure time (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Inconsistent reporting on procedural elements and device use impedes procedural best-practice evolution and should be a priority of future research.