Recommendations for blood sampling in emergency departments from the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM), European Society for Emergency Nursing (EuSEN), and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase. Executive summary.

AIM: Blood Sampling Guidelines have been developed to target European emergency medicine-related professionals involved in the blood sampling process (e.g. physicians, nurses, phlebotomists working in the ED), as well as laboratory physicians and other related professionals. The guidelines population focus on adult patients. The development of these blood sampling guidelines for the ED setting is based on the collaboration of three European scientific societies that have a role to play in the preanalytical phase process: EuSEN, EFLM, and EUSEM. The elaboration of the questions was done using the PICO procedure, literature search and appraisal was based on the GRADE methodology. The final recommendations were reviewed by an international multidisciplinary external review group. RESULTS: The document includes the elaborated recommendations for the selected sixteen questions. Three in pre-sampling, eight regarding sampling, three post-sampling, and two focus on quality assurance. In general, the quality of the evidence is very low, and the strength of the recommendation in all the questions has been rated as weak. The working group in four questions elaborate the recommendations, based mainly on group experience, rating as good practice. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary working group was considered one of the major contributors to this guideline. The lack of quality information highlights the need for research in this area of the patient care process. The peculiarities of the emergency medical areas need specific considerations to minimise the possibility of errors in the preanalytical phase.

Assessing Non-Laboratory Healthcare Professionals' Attitude towards the Importance of Patient Preparation for Laboratory Tests.

(1) Background: Various guidelines address patient preparation and its importance for venous blood sampling, such as the GP41 guideline issued by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the blood collection guidelines published by the World Health Organisation. Recommendations provided by national societies or international organisations in the field of radiology, such as The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology, or in the field of laboratory medicine, such as the Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and the Latin American Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin American Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (COLABIOCLI), also guide this practice. There is a notable lack of understanding regarding the viewpoints held by non-laboratory healthcare professionals concerning the significance of patient preparation for laboratory testing and the impact of typical factors associated with patient preparation. This study endeavours to bridge this gap by assessing the attitude of non-laboratory healthcare professionals in Lithuania regarding these pivotal aspects. (2) Methods: A self-designed anonymous questionnaire was disseminated among 141 public healthcare institutions in Lithuania. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was evaluated by computing Cronbach's alpha. Descriptive statistics were utilised for the variables, while comparisons of attitude among groups were conducted using Mann-Whitney U (for two groups) or Kruskal-Wallis (for more than two groups) for categorical and discrete indicators. The Kruskal-Wallis post-hoc test was employed for pairwise comparisons. A significance level of p-Value < 0.05 was applied to establish statistical significance. (3) Results: A total of 158 respondents constituted two distinct groups of healthcare professionals: nurses and physicians. Most of the participants either agreed or strongly agreed that patient preparation could introduce bias into laboratory test results. Professionals with less than 20 years of work experience or those who attended training in patient preparation for sampling within a 5-year timeframe exhibited stronger agreement regarding different preanalytical factors in patient preparation and their impact on laboratory test results compared to their counterparts. (4) Conclusions: Non-laboratory healthcare professionals who participated in this survey consider proper patient preparation for laboratory testing to be a significant step towards obtaining accurate test results. They also recognize the commonly acknowledged preanalytical factors as important for ensuring reliable test results. However, attitudes towards the importance of several preanalytical factors vary depending on whether non-laboratory healthcare professionals have more or less than 20 years of work experience, as well as whether they have attended any training on this topic within the last five years or have never attended such training.

A survey on the practice of phlebotomy in Lithuania and adherence to the EFLM-COLABIOCLI recommendations: continuous training and clear standard operating procedures as tools for better quality.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine the level of compliance of venous blood sampling (VBS) in Lithuania with the joint recommendations of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine and the Latin American Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (EFLM-COLABIOCLI) and to analyse possible causes of errors. A survey was conducted between April and September 2022. Materials and methods: A self-designed questionnaire was distributed to the Lithuanian National Societies. Error frequencies and compliance score were computed. Differences between groups were analysed using Pearson's chi-square, Fisher's exact criterion, Mann-Whitney U (for two groups), or Kruskal-Wallis (for more than two groups) for categorical and discrete indicators. The association between ordinal and discrete variables was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Statistical significance was determined at P < 0.05. Results: A total of 272 respondents completed the questionnaire. Median error rate and compliance score were 31.5% and 13/19, respectively. Significant differences were found among professional titles, standard operating procedures availability, training recency, and tourniquet purpose opinions. A negative correlation was noted between compliance and time since training (rs = - 0.28, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that there is a significant need for improvement in compliance with the EFLM-COLABIOCLI recommendations on VBS among specialists in Lithuania. Essential measures include prioritizing ongoing phlebotomy training and establishing national guidelines. Harmonisation of blood collection practices across healthcare institutions is crucial.

Can chewing gum be another source of preanalytical variability in fasting outpatients?

INTRODUCTION: In the daily laboratory practice, there are patients coming to blood collection sites chewing sugar-free gum, considering it irrelevant to laboratory tests. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a sugar-free chewing gum can interfere with laboratory tests. METHODS: We studied 22 healthy volunteers. After a 12-hour overnight fasting, the first blood sample was collected between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. Then, immediately after the first venous blood collection, the subjects started chewing the gum (declared sugar-free) for 20 min. Subsequent venous blood samples were collected at 1, 2, and 4 hours after chewing the gum. Significant differences between samples were assessed by the Wilcoxon ranked-pairs test. RESULTS: Among all the results, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between basal and × hours after chewing sugar-free gum were observed for the following parameters: cortisol, insulin, C-peptide, triglycerides, uric acid, urea, amylase, alanine aminotransferase, lipase, creatine kinase, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, phosphate, iron, potassium, thyroid stimulating hormone, red blood cell count, hematocrit, hemoglobin, mean cell volume, red cell distribution width, white blood cell count, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils; whereas, coagulation tests were not impacted by chewing sugar-free gum. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend instructing the patients to avoid the use of chewing gum before blood collection for laboratory tests.