What proportion of vancomycin trough levels are drawn too early?: frequency and impact on clinical actions.

Vancomycin trough levels are recommended to predict vancomycin efficacy, and inaccurate levels may lead to inappropriate clinical actions. However, the frequency of timing errors and associated clinical impact is unknown. We retrospectively analyzed vancomycin levels (n = 2,597) measured during 13 months at a large academic medical center. Of the specimens, 41.3% were drawn too early. These samples yielded significantly higher average ± SD vancomycin concentrations than correctly timed samples (22.1 ± 11.7 mg/L vs 15.5 mg/L ± 8.6 mg/L; P < .001), and, consequently, clinicians were more likely to decrease, discontinue, or hold a patient's vancomycin dose (25.6% vs 21.4%; P < .02) or repeat the vancomycin level (29.2% vs 20.0%; P < .001). A substantial proportion of specimens collected to assess vancomycin efficacy were drawn too early, leading to overestimation of patients' true trough level and possible underdosing of vancomycin or a high rate of repeat tests for vancomycin.

A strategy for optimizing staffing to improve the timeliness of inpatient phlebotomy collections.

CONTEXT: The timely availability of inpatient test results is a key to physician satisfaction with the clinical laboratory, and in an institution with a phlebotomy service may depend on the timeliness of blood collections. In response to safety reports filed for delayed phlebotomy collections, we applied Lean principles to the inpatient phlebotomy service at our institution. Our goal was to improve service without using additional resources by optimizing our staffing model. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a new phlebotomy staffing model on the timeliness of inpatient phlebotomy collections. DESIGN: We compared the median time of morning blood collections and average number of safety reports filed for delayed phlebotomy collections during a 6-month preimplementation period and 5-month postimplementation period. RESULTS: The median time of morning collections was 17 minutes earlier after implementation (7:42 am preimplementation; interquartile range, 6:27-8:48 am; versus 7:25 am postimplementation; interquartile range, 6:20-8:26 am). The frequency of safety reports filed for delayed collections decreased 80% from 10.6 per 30 days to 2.2 per 30 days. CONCLUSION: Reallocating staff to match the pattern of demand for phlebotomy collections throughout the day represents a strategy for improving the performance of an inpatient phlebotomy service.

Reduction in specimen labeling errors after implementation of a positive patient identification system in phlebotomy.

Ensuring accurate patient identification is central to preventing medical errors, but it can be challenging. We implemented a bar code-based positive patient identification system for use in inpatient phlebotomy. A before-after design was used to evaluate the impact of the identification system on the frequency of mislabeled and unlabeled samples reported in our laboratory. Labeling errors fell from 5.45 in 10,000 before implementation to 3.2 in 10,000 afterward (P = .0013). An estimated 108 mislabeling events were prevented by the identification system in 1 year. Furthermore, a workflow step requiring manual preprinting of labels, which was accompanied by potential labeling errors in about one quarter of blood "draws," was removed as a result of the new system. After implementation, a higher percentage of patients reported having their wristband checked before phlebotomy. Bar code technology significantly reduced the rate of specimen identification errors.