MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126922359 · doi:10.5858/2002-126-0416-opsarf

Outpatient Phlebotomy Success and Reasons for Specimen Rejection

2002· article· en· W3126922359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane C. Dale, David A. Novis

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhlebotomyMedicineBlood collectionSurgeryOutpatient clinicBloodlettingEmergency medicineGeneral surgeryInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives.—To determine the rate with which blood collection is successful on the initial phlebotomy encounter, the rate with which laboratory personnel judge specimens unsuitable for analysis, and the practice characteristics associated with fewer unsuccessful collections and fewer rejected specimens. Design.—Clinical laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes laboratory improvement program prospectively characterized the outcome of outpatient phlebotomies for 3 months or until 20 unsuccessful phlebotomy encounters occurred. By questionnaire, participants provided information about test ordering, patient preparation, and specimen collection. Setting and Participants.—Institutions in the United States (n = 202), Canada (n = 4), Australia (n = 3), and South Korea (n = 1). Main Outcome Measures.—Percentage of successful encounters and percentage of unsuitable specimens. Results.—Of 833289 encounters, 829723 were successful. Phlebotomies were unsuccessful because patients were not fasting as directed (32.2%), phlebotomy orders were missing information (22.5%), patients specimens were difficult to draw (13.0%), patients left the collection area before specimens were collected (11.8%), patients were improperly prepared for reasons other than fasting (6.3%), patients presented at the wrong time (3.1%), or for other reasons (11.8%). Only 2153 specimens (0.3%) were unsuitable; these samples were hemolyzed (18.1%), of insufficient quantity (16.0%), clotted (13.4%), lost or not received in the laboratory (11.5%), inadequately labeled (5.8%), at variance with previous or expected results (4.8%), or unacceptable for other reasons (31.1%). Facilities staffed by laboratory-administered phlebotomists reported higher success rates than facilities staffed by nonlaboratory-administered phlebotomists (P = .002). Conclusions.—Most outpatient phlebotomy encounters are successful and result in specimens suitable for laboratory analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207