A content validated questionnaire for assessment of self reported venous blood sampling practices

BMC Research Notes

Johan Söderberg¹  Marie Lindkvist²  Kjell Grankvist¹  Christine Brulin⁴  Karin Bölenius³ 

[1] Department of Medical Biosciences, Clinical Chemistry, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden;Department of Statistics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden;Department of Nursing, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden;Department of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

关键词: Venous blood sampling;    Risk;    Reliability and validity;    Questionnaires;    Preanalytical errors;    Patient safety;    Error risk assessment;   

Others  :  1166765
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-5-39

 received in 2011-07-05, accepted in 2012-01-19,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Venous blood sampling is a common procedure in health care. It is strictly regulated by national and international guidelines. Deviations from guidelines due to human mistakes can cause patient harm. Validated questionnaires for health care personnel can be used to assess preventable "near misses"--i.e. potential errors and nonconformities during venous blood sampling practices that could transform into adverse events. However, no validated questionnaire that assesses nonconformities in venous blood sampling has previously been presented. The aim was to test a recently developed questionnaire in self reported venous blood sampling practices for validity and reliability.

Findings

We developed a questionnaire to assess deviations from best practices during venous blood sampling. The questionnaire contained questions about patient identification, test request management, test tube labeling, test tube handling, information search procedures and frequencies of error reporting. For content validity, the questionnaire was confirmed by experts on questionnaires and venous blood sampling. For reliability, test-retest statistics were used on the questionnaire answered twice. The final venous blood sampling questionnaire included 19 questions out of which 9 had in total 34 underlying items. It was found to have content validity. The test-retest analysis demonstrated that the items were generally stable. In total, 82% of the items fulfilled the reliability acceptance criteria.

Conclusions

The questionnaire could be used for assessment of "near miss" practices that could jeopardize patient safety and gives several benefits instead of assessing rare adverse events only. The higher frequencies of "near miss" practices allows for quantitative analysis of the effect of corrective interventions and to benchmark preanalytical quality not only at the laboratory/hospital level but also at the health care unit/hospital ward.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Bölenius et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Johnstone M: Patient safety ethics and human error management in ED contexts. Part I: development of the global patient safety movement. Aust Emerg Nurs J 2007, 10:13-20.
• [2]Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/8622/2008-109-16_200810916_rev2.pdf webcite [Accessed: 2010-05-16]
• [3]Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C: Natl Academy Pr; 2000.
• [4]Carraro P, Plebani M: Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem 2007, 53:1338-1342.
• [5]Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M: Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001, 322:517-519.
• [6]Sciacovelli L, Plebani M: The ifcc working group on laboratory errors and patient safety. Clin Chim Acta 2009, 404:79-85.
• [7]Plebani M: Exploring the iceberg of errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2009, 404:16-23.
• [8]Fang L, Fang SH, Chung YH, Chien ST: Collecting factors related to the haemolysis of blood specimens. J Clin Nurs 2008, 17:2343-2351.
• [9]Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F: Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2002, 48:691-698.
• [10]Plebani M: Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med 2006, 44:750-759.
• [11]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Procedures for the Collection of Diagnostic Blood Specimens by Venipuncture. Approved Standard. 6th edition. Wayne: CLSI; 2007. CLSI document H3-A6
• [12]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Procedures for the Handling and Processing of Blood Specimens. Approved Guideline. 3rd edition. Wayne: CLSI; 2010. CLSI document H13-A3
• [13]Västerbottens Läns Landsting. Provtagningsanvisningar Laboratoriemedicin VLL (in Swedish) https://webappl.vll.se/provtagningsanvisningar webcite [Accessed: 2010-09-29]
• [14]The Handbook for Healthcare http://www.vardhandboken.se/In-English/ webcite [Accessed: 2010-12-17]
• [15]Becan-McBride K: Laboratory sampling: does the process affect the outcome? J Intraven Nurs 1999, 22:137.
• [16]Soderberg J, Wallin O, Grankvist K, Brulin C: Is the test result correct? A questionnaire study of blood collection practices in primary health care. J Eval Clin Pract 2010, 16:707-711.
• [17]Soderberg J, Brulin C, Grankvist K, Wallin O: Preanalytical errors in primary healthcare: a questionnaire study of information search procedures, test request management and test tube labelling. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009, 47:195-201.
• [18]Soderberg J, Grankvist K, Brulin C, Wallin O: Incident reporting practices in the preanalytical phase: low reported frequencies in the primary health care setting. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2009, 69:731-735.
• [19]Wallin O, Soderberg J, Van Guelpen B, Brulin C, Grankvist K: Patient-centred care--preanalytical factors demand attention: a questionnaire study of venous blood sampling and specimen handling. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2007, 67:836-847.
• [20]Wallin O, Soderberg J, Van Guelpen B, Stenlund H, Grankvist K, Brulin C: Preanalytical venous blood sampling practices demand improvement--a survey of test-request management, test-tube labelling and information search procedures. Clin Chim Acta 2008, 391:91-97.
• [21]Wallin O, Soderberg J, Van Guelpen B, Stenlund H, Grankvist K, Brulin C: Blood sample collection and patient identification demand improvement: a questionnaire study of preanalytical practices in hospital wards and laboratories. Scand J Caring Sci 2010, 24:581-591.
• [22]Polit DF, Beck CT: Essential of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
• [23]Higgins PA, Straub AJ: Understanding the error of our ways: mapping the concepts of validity and reliability. Nurs Outlook 2006, 54:23-29.
• [24]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2008.
• [25]Jones BA, Calam RR, Howanitz PJ: Chemistry specimen acceptability. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997, 121:19-27.
• [26]Jones BA, Meier F, Howanitz PJ: Complete blood count specimen acceptability. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995, 119:203-208.
• [27]Szecsi PB, Odum L: Error tracking in a clinical biochemistry laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009, 47:1253-1257.
• [28]Kappa as a measure of concordance in categorical sorting http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/kappa.html webcite [Accessed: 2010-09-23]
• [29]Altman DG: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.
• [30]Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N: Resilience Engineering. Concepts and precepts. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2006.
• [31]Reason J: Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000, 320:768-770.
• [32]Barach P, Small SD: Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. Br Med J 2000, 320:759-763.
• [33]Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/regelverk/lagarochforordningar webcite [Accessed 2010-09-29]
• [34]World Health Organization. The Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety http://www.who.int/patientsafety/taxonomy/icps_full_report.pdf webcite [Accessed: 2010-12-17]