Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality · 2023
Comparison of Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes Between Blood Collection Approaches: A Systematic Literature Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Perry Cathy, Alsbrooks Kimberly, Mares Alicia, Hoerauf Klaus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A systematic literature review was performed to understand the prevalence, advantages, and disadvantages of blood collection using different approaches (direct venipuncture or vascular access devices), and interventions used to mitigate the disadvantages.
METHODS: The review included a broad range of study designs and outcomes. Database searches (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) were conducted in March 2021 and supplemented by hand searching.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-one publications were included. The data indicate that blood sampling from vascular access devices is common in emergency departments, trauma centers, and intensive care units. Studies showed that hemolysis and sample contamination place a considerable economic burden on hospitals. Significant cost savings could be made through enforcing strict aseptic technique, or using the initial specimen diversion technique.
CONCLUSIONS: Hemolysis and sample contamination are far from inevitable in vascular access device-collected or venipuncture samples; both can be reduced through adherence to strict blood sampling protocols and utilization of the initial specimen diversion technique. Needle-free blood collection devices offer further hope for reducing hemolysis. No publication focused on the difficult venous access population; insertion success rates are likely to be lower (and the benefits of vascular access devices higher) in these patients.
METHODS: The review included a broad range of study designs and outcomes. Database searches (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) were conducted in March 2021 and supplemented by hand searching.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-one publications were included. The data indicate that blood sampling from vascular access devices is common in emergency departments, trauma centers, and intensive care units. Studies showed that hemolysis and sample contamination place a considerable economic burden on hospitals. Significant cost savings could be made through enforcing strict aseptic technique, or using the initial specimen diversion technique.
CONCLUSIONS: Hemolysis and sample contamination are far from inevitable in vascular access device-collected or venipuncture samples; both can be reduced through adherence to strict blood sampling protocols and utilization of the initial specimen diversion technique. Needle-free blood collection devices offer further hope for reducing hemolysis. No publication focused on the difficult venous access population; insertion success rates are likely to be lower (and the benefits of vascular access devices higher) in these patients.