Findings of Phlebotomy Practices in Kenya in 2010: Need for Action

• Published in: The Journal of infectious diseases Vol. 213; no. suppl 2; pp. S53 - S58
• Main Authors: Kimani, Daniel, Kamau, Rachel, Gadde, Renuka, Selenic, Dejana, Maina, Stephen, Marum, Lawrence, Hongjiang, Gao, Mwalili, Samuel, Marfin, Anthony, Mwangi, Jane
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Oxford University Press 15.04.2016
• Subjects: Blood Specimen Collection - standards; Cross-Sectional Studies; Delivery of Health Care - organization & administration; Health Personnel; Humans; Kenya; Phlebotomy - standards; Public-Private Partnership and Strengthening Laboratory Systems in Africa; Public-Private Sector Partnerships; Quality Control; Safety; Kenya; phlebotomy; preanalytical errors; blood specimen quality; public-private partnerships
• ISSN: 0022-1899; 1537-6613
• DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiv747

Background. Phlebotomy, a commonly performed medical procedure in healthcare, is essential for disease diagnosis and patient management. However, poorly performed phlebotomy can compromise patient safety, healthcare worker (HCW) safety, and specimen quality. We carried out a study between June and July 2010 to assess knowledge, quality and safety of phlebotomy before implementation of a public-private partnership between Becton, Dickinson and Company and the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Methods. This was a cross-sectional observational study in 8 healthcare facilities within 4 regions of Kenya. HCWs were observed conducting venous and capillary blood collections, and pre- and posttests were offered during HCW training. Results. Of 283 blood samples obtained, 194 were venous draws conducted by 72 HCWs and 89 were capillary draws performed by 33 HCWs. Based on 12 preset quality-associated criteria, none of the 194 observed phlebotomies met the standard. In total, 91 HCWs were trained in phlebotomy. The mean knowledge increase between pre- and posttraining test was 41%, ranging from 39% to 45% (95% confidence interval, 29.3%–53.5%; P < .001). Conclusions. Inadequate knowledge and imperfect phlebotomy procedures were noted. This formed the basis for the safe phlebotomy partnership to address these deficiencies. To ensure sustainability, safe phlebotomy practices were integrated into preservice training.