Home Hemolysis rates in blood samples: differences between blood collected by clinicians and nurses and the effect of phlebotomy training
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Hemolysis rates in blood samples: differences between blood collected by clinicians and nurses and the effect of phlebotomy training

  • Janne Cadamuro EMAIL logo , Alexander von Meyer , Helmut Wiedemann , Thomas Klaus Felder , Franziska Moser , Ulrike Kipman , Elisabeth Haschke-Becher , Cornelia Mrazek and Ana-Maria Simundic
Published/Copyright: May 28, 2016
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
From the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) Volume 54 Issue 12

Abstract

Background:

Hemolytic samples are one of the most challenging preanalytical issues in laboratory medicine. Even causes leading to hemolytic specimen are various, including phlebotomy practices. Respective educational interventions as well as the reduction of the number of people involved in blood collections are claimed to influence the sample quality for the better. In our hospital 70 junior doctors were in charge of routine phlebotomy until 2012, when this task was shifted to 874 nurses, including a preceding training in phlebotomy and preanalytics. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of this training effect and the increase of people involved on sample quality.

Methods:

The hemolysis index (HI) of 43,875 samples was measured before (n=21,512) and after (n=22,363) the switch of blood collection responsibilities. Differences in overall hemolysis rates and the amount of plasma samples with a concentration of free hemoglobin (fHb) above 0.5 g/L and 1 g/L were calculated.

Results:

Overall HI as well as the percentage of samples with an fHb concentration >0.5 g/L decreased after the responsibility for phlebotomy changed. The rate of samples with an fHb concentration >1 g/L remained unchanged.

Conclusions:

Hemolysis rates were reduced upon passing phlebotomy tasks from untrained physicians on to a trained nursing staff. We therefore conclude that the number of people performing phlebotomy seems to play a minor role, compared to the effect of a standardized training. However, whether a reduction in the number of people involved in blood collection could lead to further improvement of sample quality, remains to be investigated in future studies.

Keywords: blood collection; hemolysis; phlebotomy; preanalytics

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Cadamuro J. Internal quality assurance for preanalytical phase. In: Guder WG, Narayanan S, editors. Pre-examination procedures in laboratory diagnostics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015:345–51.10.1515/9783110334043-040Search in Google Scholar

2. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Chiozza ML. Harmonization of pre-analytical quality indicators. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24:105–13.10.11613/BM.2014.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Procedures for the Collection of Diagnostic Blood Specimens by Venipuncture. Approved Standard – 6th edition: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

4. World Health Organisation. WHO guidelines on drawing blood: best practices in phlebotomy. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

5. Goswami B, Singh B, Chawla R, Mallika V. Evaluation of errors in a clinical laboratory: a one-year experience. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:63–6.10.1515/CCLM.2010.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:764–72.10.1515/CCLM.2008.170Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Specimencare. Available at: http://www.specimencare.com. Accessed 8 Nov 2015.Search in Google Scholar

8. Young D. Effects of preanalytical variables on clinical laboratory tests, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

9. Cadamuro J, Fiedler GM, Mrazek C, Felder TK, Oberkofler H, Kipman U, et al. Reply to: Cadamuro et al. In-vitro hemolysis and its financial impact using different blood collection systems. J Lab Med 2016;40:59–61.10.1515/labmed-2015-0078Search in Google Scholar

10. Cadamuro J, Fiedler GM, Mrazek C, Felder TK, Oberkofler H, Kipman U, et al. In-vitro hemolysis and its financial impact using different blood collection systems. J Lab Med 2016;40:49–55.10.1515/labmed-2015-0078Search in Google Scholar

11. Soderberg J, Jonsson PA, Wallin O, Grankvist K, Hultdin J. Haemolysis index–an estimate of preanalytical quality in primary health care. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:940–4.10.1515/CCLM.2009.227Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Simundic AM, Cornes M, Grankvist K, Lippi G, Nybo M, Kovalevskaya S, et al. Survey of national guidelines, education and training on phlebotomy in 28 European countries: an original report by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PA). Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1585–93.10.1515/cclm-2013-0283Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Simundic AM. Who is doing phlebotomy in Europe? In: Guder WG, Narayanan S, editors. Pre-examination procedures in laboratory diagnostics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015:90–4.10.1515/9783110334043-015Search in Google Scholar

14. Dorotic A, Antoncic D, Biljak VR, Nedic D, Beletic A. Hemolysis from a nurses’ standpoint–survey from four Croatian hospitals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2015;25:393–400.10.11613/BM.2015.039Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Milutinovic D, Andrijevic I, Licina M, Andrijevic L. Confidence level in venipuncture and knowledge on causes of in vitro hemolysis among healthcare professionals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2015;25:401–9.10.11613/BM.2015.040Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

16. Wang H, Liu X, Kuang L, Shi H, Jiang Y. Establishing professional phlebotomist group for quality control of the preanalytic variables of clinical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1841–2.10.1515/cclm-2012-0127Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. The IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:79–85.10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.025Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety (WG-LEPS). Quality indicators project. Available at: http://www.ifcc-mqi.com. Accessed 19 Nov 2015.Search in Google Scholar

19. Plebani M, Lippi G. Hemolysis index: quality indicator or criterion for sample rejection? Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47: 899–902.10.1515/CCLM.2009.229Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Giavarina D. Low volume tubes can be effective to reduce the rate of hemolyzed specimens from the emergency department. Clin Biochem 2014;47:688–9.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.02.019Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Goegebuer T, Debrabandere J. Influence of the serum collection system on hemolysis. Focus Diagnostica 2008;16:22–5.Search in Google Scholar

22. Lippi G, Avanzini P, Aloe R, Cervellin G. Reduction of gross hemolysis in catheter-drawn blood using Greiner Holdex tube holder. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2013;23:303–7.10.11613/BM.2013.036Search in Google Scholar

23. Lippi G, Bonelli P, Cervellin G. Prevalence and cost of hemolyzed samples in a large urban emergency department. Int J Lab Hematol 2014;36:e24–6.10.1111/ijlh.12135Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Unger J, Filippi G, Patsch W. Measurements of free hemoglobin and hemolysis index: EDTA- or lithium-heparinate plasma? Clin Chem 2007;53:1717–8.10.1373/clinchem.2007.091421Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Dolci A, Panteghini M. Harmonization of automated hemolysis index assessment and use: is it possible? Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:38–43.10.1016/j.cca.2013.10.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Glick M, Ryder K, Vroon D, Masters B, Sonntag O. Practical uses of serum indexes to reduce errors from lipemia, icterus, and hemolysis. Clin Chem 1990;36:1008.Search in Google Scholar

27. Simundic AM, Church S, Cornes MP, Grankvist K, Lippi G, Nybo M, et al. Compliance of blood sampling procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines: An observational study by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PRE). Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1321–31.10.1515/cclm-2014-1053Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Alsina MJ, Alvarez V, Barba N, Bullich S, Cortes M, Escoda I, et al. Preanalytical quality control program-an overview of results (2001–2005 summary). Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:849–54.10.1515/CCLM.2008.168Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Salinas M, Lopez-Garrigos M, Flores E, Santo-Quiles A, Gutierrez M, Lugo J, et al. Ten years of preanalytical monitoring and control: synthetic balanced score card indicator. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2015;25:49–56.10.11613/BM.2015.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

30. Jones BA, Calam RR, Howanitz PJ. Chemistry specimen acceptability: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 453 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:19–26.Search in Google Scholar

31. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Guidi GC. Laboratory quality improvement by implementation of phlebotomy guidelines. MLO Med Lab Obs 2006;38:6–7; author reply.Search in Google Scholar

32. Lillo R, Salinas M, Lopez-Garrigos M, Naranjo-Santana Y, Gutierrez M, Marin MD, et al. Reducing preanalytical laboratory sample errors through educational and technological interventions. Clin Lab 2012;58:911–7.Search in Google Scholar

33. McGrath JK, Rankin P, Schendel M. Let the data speak: decreasing hemolysis rates through education, practice, and disclosure. J Emerg Nurs 2012;38:239–44.10.1016/j.jen.2011.01.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed

34. Bolenius K, Soderberg J, Hultdin J, Lindkvist M, Brulin C, Grankvist K. Minor improvement of venous blood specimen collection practices in primary health care after a large-scale educational intervention. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:303–10.10.1515/cclm-2012-0159Search in Google Scholar PubMed

35. Burns E, Yoshikawa N. Hemolysis in Serum Samples Drawn by Emergency Department Personnel versus Laboratory Phlebotomists. Lab Med 2002;33:378–80.10.1309/PGM4-4F8L-2P1M-LKPBSearch in Google Scholar

36. Davidson DF. A survey of some pre-analytical errors identified from the Biochemistry Department of a Scottish hospital. Scott Med J 2014;59:91–4.10.1177/0036933014529056Search in Google Scholar PubMed

37. Ong ME, Chan YH, Lim CS. Observational study to determine factors associated with blood sample haemolysis in the emergency department. Ann Aca Med, Singapore 2008;37:745–8.10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V37N9p745Search in Google Scholar

38. Ahmad MI, Ramesh KL, Kumar R. Preanalytical quality in clinical chemistry laboratory. Clin Lab 2014;60:87–92.Search in Google Scholar

39. Southwick K. Back to the drawing board. CAP today/College of American Pathologists 2001;15:12–4, 6, 8.Search in Google Scholar

40. Simundic AM, Topic E, Nikolac N, Lippi G. Hemolysis detection and management of hemolyzed specimens. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2010;20:154–9.10.11613/BM.2010.018Search in Google Scholar

41. Goegebuer T. Influence of the serum sample tubes on hemolysis. Focus Diagnostica 2008;16:22–5.Search in Google Scholar

42. Lippi G. Systematic Assessment of the Hemolysis Index: Pros and Cons. Adv Clin Chem 2015;71:157–70.10.1016/bs.acc.2015.05.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed

43. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Pelloso M, Chiozza ML. Performance criteria and quality indicators for the pre-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:943–8.10.1515/cclm-2014-1124Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2016-3-4
Accepted: 2016-4-30
Published Online: 2016-5-28
Published in Print: 2016-12-1

©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Biomarkers, inflammation and cancer: where to go?
  4. Review
  5. Analysis, detection and quantitation of mixed cryoglobulins in HCV infection: brief review and case examples
  6. Mini Reviews
  7. Calcitonin measurement and immunoassay interference: a case report and literature review
  8. Exosomal non-coding RNAs: a promising cancer biomarker
  9. Opinion Paper
  10. Towards a new paradigm in laboratory medicine: the five rights
  11. EFLM Recommendation
  12. Recommendation for the review of biological reference intervals in medical laboratories
  13. IFCC Position Paper
  14. Assuring the quality of interpretative comments in clinical chemistry
  15. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  16. The effect of centrifugation speed and time on pre-analytical platelet activation
  17. An assessment of clinical laboratory performance for the determination of manganese in blood and urine
  18. Evaluation of antiphospholipid antibody assays using latent class analysis to address the lack of a reference standard
  19. Evaluation of the hypochromic erythrocyte and reticulocyte hemoglobin content provided by the Sysmex XE-5000 analyzer in diagnosis of iron deficiency erythropoiesis
  20. Cancer Diagnosis
  21. Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  22. Association between Echinococcus granulosus infection and cancer risk – a pilot study in Cyprus
  23. Dynamic change of the systemic immune inflammation index predicts the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection
  24. Aberrant methylation of tumour suppressor genes WT1, GATA5 and PAX5 in hepatocellular carcinoma
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. High homocysteine and low folate plasma concentrations are associated with cardiovascular events but not bleeding during warfarin treatment
  27. Hemolysis and Coagulation
  28. Hemolysis rates in blood samples: differences between blood collected by clinicians and nurses and the effect of phlebotomy training
  29. Letters to the Editor
  30. Harmonisation of the laboratory testing process: need for a coordinated approach
  31. Pseudohyperkalemia due to severe leukocytosis: case presentation
  32. When obtaining a blood sample from the right arm was not the right thing to do: a case of elevated parathyroid hormone levels 27 years after thyroidectomy
  33. Raising awareness of assay compatibility with heparinized plasma
  34. Improved protocol for extraction of genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples without the use of xylene
  35. Effect of refrigeration, centrifugation, acidification, heat treatment and storage on urine calcium, magnesium and phosphate
  36. Letter in response to: Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  37. Letter to the Editor in reply to Dayyani and Morgenstern’s comment on the article “Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety”
  38. Level of red cell distribution width is affected by various factors
  39. Red blood cell distribution: an index without additional cost in estimating the prognosis of acute pancreatitis
  40. Testing of total 25(OH)vitamin D: agreement and discrepant cases between Cobas® 8000 and Liaison® XL methods
  41. Expression profiling and ontology analysis of circulating long non-coding RNAs in septic acute kidney injury patients
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0175
Keywords for this article
blood collection; hemolysis; phlebotomy; preanalytics

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Biomarkers, inflammation and cancer: where to go?
  4. Review
  5. Analysis, detection and quantitation of mixed cryoglobulins in HCV infection: brief review and case examples
  6. Mini Reviews
  7. Calcitonin measurement and immunoassay interference: a case report and literature review
  8. Exosomal non-coding RNAs: a promising cancer biomarker
  9. Opinion Paper
  10. Towards a new paradigm in laboratory medicine: the five rights
  11. EFLM Recommendation
  12. Recommendation for the review of biological reference intervals in medical laboratories
  13. IFCC Position Paper
  14. Assuring the quality of interpretative comments in clinical chemistry
  15. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  16. The effect of centrifugation speed and time on pre-analytical platelet activation
  17. An assessment of clinical laboratory performance for the determination of manganese in blood and urine
  18. Evaluation of antiphospholipid antibody assays using latent class analysis to address the lack of a reference standard
  19. Evaluation of the hypochromic erythrocyte and reticulocyte hemoglobin content provided by the Sysmex XE-5000 analyzer in diagnosis of iron deficiency erythropoiesis
  20. Cancer Diagnosis
  21. Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  22. Association between Echinococcus granulosus infection and cancer risk – a pilot study in Cyprus
  23. Dynamic change of the systemic immune inflammation index predicts the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection
  24. Aberrant methylation of tumour suppressor genes WT1, GATA5 and PAX5 in hepatocellular carcinoma
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. High homocysteine and low folate plasma concentrations are associated with cardiovascular events but not bleeding during warfarin treatment
  27. Hemolysis and Coagulation
  28. Hemolysis rates in blood samples: differences between blood collected by clinicians and nurses and the effect of phlebotomy training
  29. Letters to the Editor
  30. Harmonisation of the laboratory testing process: need for a coordinated approach
  31. Pseudohyperkalemia due to severe leukocytosis: case presentation
  32. When obtaining a blood sample from the right arm was not the right thing to do: a case of elevated parathyroid hormone levels 27 years after thyroidectomy
  33. Raising awareness of assay compatibility with heparinized plasma
  34. Improved protocol for extraction of genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples without the use of xylene
  35. Effect of refrigeration, centrifugation, acidification, heat treatment and storage on urine calcium, magnesium and phosphate
  36. Letter in response to: Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety
  37. Letter to the Editor in reply to Dayyani and Morgenstern’s comment on the article “Identifying risk in the use of tumor markers to improve patient safety”
  38. Level of red cell distribution width is affected by various factors
  39. Red blood cell distribution: an index without additional cost in estimating the prognosis of acute pancreatitis
  40. Testing of total 25(OH)vitamin D: agreement and discrepant cases between Cobas® 8000 and Liaison® XL methods
  41. Expression profiling and ontology analysis of circulating long non-coding RNAs in septic acute kidney injury patients
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 10.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2016-0175/html
Scroll to top button