• Passa al contenuto principale
BC

biochimica clinica

it_IT Italian
it_IT Italian en_US English
  • Home
  • Casi clinici
  • Ahead of print e Ultimo Fascicolo - Accedi per visualizzare gli articoli
  • Archivio BC fino a 2024
  • Sottometti un articolo
  • Norme Autori
  • Cerca

CONTRIBUTI SCIENTIFICI – Scientific Papers

Volume:

Biochimica Clinica 2018; 42(2) 131-140

Pubblicato on-line:

Aprile 19, 2018

DOI:

10.19186/BC_2018.027

Scarica in PDF:
Autenticazione richiesta

La check list in medicina di laboratorio quale strumento di assicurazione della qualità e sicurezza del paziente: l’esempio del prelievo venoso

AUTORI

Ada Aita1, Raffaella Marin1, Catia Pozzato2, Elisa Piva2, Laura Sciacovelli2, Mario Plebani1,2
1Dipartimento di Medicina-DIMED e 2Unità Operativa Complessa Medicina di Laboratorio, Azienda Ospedaliera-Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova

ABSTRACT

Check-list in laboratory medicine: an important tool to improve patient safety. The blood collection

This work aims to describe the results concerning the implementation of a check-list (CL) on blood collection procedures as a tool to prevent errors in laboratory medicine. Literature and operating procedures carried out in three outpatients phlebotomy sites (SMa, SMb, PN) were analysed to identify check-points (CPs). CL draft was evaluated by a multidisciplinary team and tested for one month (September 2014) by 25 physicians and 15 nurses. The filled in CLs were analysed together with the involved staff and a final version was released. CL effectiveness was evaluated immediately after experimentation and one year later. 5661 CL were filled in, out of 9469 venipunctures (59.8%). The percentages of CPs filled in within SMa, SMb and PN were respectively: 100% patient identification and label-sample-identification matching; 80.2, 73.1 and 51.9% vein selection; 96.7, 95.8 and 97.9% needle selection; 82.5, 85.8 and 89.9% tourniquet application time; 98.9, 97.9 and 98.7% tubes filling; 98.4, 97.4 and 98.7% tubes mixing; 27.6, 23.5 and 15% temperature transport; 16.4, 20.8 and 1.3% time transport. The percentages of unsuitable samples in SM and PN were respectively: 0.040 and 0.013% (September 2014); 0.041 and 0.012% (October 2014); 0.024 and 0.16% (September-October 2015). The insufficient number of available CLs, difficulties over communication concerning purpose and methodology, and patients crowding affected the results in SM; anyway the CL was very helpful for trainees. An effective CL should: include only critical CPs, be shared with the staff, take into account organizational peculiarities. CL is a powerful tool to ensure patient safety only when it becomes an integral part of quality management system.

BIBLIOGRAFIA

HOME
PRIVACY POLICY
5x1000 Docemus

LOGO SIBioC

EDITORE RESPONSABILE
Alberto Oliaro

EDITORIAL SECRETARY
Edizioni Minerva Medica S.p.A.
Corso Bramante 83-85, 10126 Torino
T +39 011 678282
journals.dept@minervamedica.it

Designed by Biomedia srl
© 2025 SIBioC
P. IVA IT 06484860967