Our goals were to improve the overall patient experience and optimize the blood collection process in outpatient phlebotomy using Lean principles. Elimination of non-value-added steps and modifications to operational processes resulted in increased capacity to handle workload during peak times without adding staff. The result was a reduction of average patient wait time from 21 to 5 minutes, with the goal of drawing blood samples within 10 minutes of arrival at the phlebotomy station met for 90% of patients. In addition, patient satisfaction increased noticeably as assessed by a 5-question survey. The results have been sustained for 10 months with staff continuing to make process improvements.

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.

Point-of-care (POC) instruments employing fingerstick whole blood to monitor patients treated with warfarin are a popular alternative to complex, central laboratory coagulation analyzers utilizing citrated plasma derived from venipuncture. We investigated the accuracy of two widely utilized POC instruments for oral anticoagulation monitoring compared with a central laboratory instrument. Instrument-to-instrument variation differed for the two POC instruments, which correlated with the central laboratory instrument, but exhibited positive bias of 0.