Table 4. Assessment of the practice regarding the use of pre-existing peripheral intravenous line as an alternative to venipuncture to collect blood samples § P-value has been calculated using Fischer Exact test.
| Statement | Overall N (%)(n=95) | ED N (%)(n=54) | ICU N (%)(n=41) | P-value§ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do you experience blood sample collection through a pre-existing peripheral intravenous line as an alternative to direct venipuncture? ‡ | ||||
| No | 53 (55.8%) | 32 (59.3%) | 21 (51.2%) | 0.532 |
| Yes | 42 (44.2%) | 22 (40.7%) | 20 (48.8%) | |
| If you prefer using pre-existing peripheral intravenous line to collect blood samples, what is/are the possible benefit/s you have noticed? † | ||||
| Time saving method | 63 (66.3%) | 36 (66.7%) | 27 (65.9%) | 1.000 |
| Safe method | 34 (35.8%) | 15 (27.8%) | 19 (46.3%) | 0.084 |
| Anxiety reduction | 36 (37.9%) | 19 (35.2%) | 17 (41.5%) | 0.670 |
| No special training is required | 13 (13.7%) | 08 (14.8%) | 05 (12.2%) | 0.772 |
| No idea | 03 (03.2%) | 02 (03.7%) | 01 (02.4%) | 1.000 |
| None of these | 06 (06.3%) | 05 (09.3%) | 01 (02.4%) | 0.231 |
| If you don’t prefer using pre-existing peripheral intravenous line to collect blood samples, what are the concerns you try to avoid? † | ||||
| Sample dilution | 56 (58.9%) | 30 (55.6%) | 26 (63.4%) | 0.529 |
| Sample hemolysis | 45 (47.4%) | 24 (44.4%) | 21 (51.2%) | 0.540 |
| Sample contamination by colonization | 32 (33.7%) | 20 (37.0%) | 12 (29.3%) | 0.513 |
| Sample not adequate | 17 (17.9%) | 10 (18.5%) | 07 (17.1%) | 1.000 |
| Catheter occlusion by a thrombus | 26 (27.4%) | 14 (25.9%) | 12 (29.3%) | 0.817 |
| No idea | 02 (02.1%) | 01 (01.9%) | 01 (02.4%) | 1.000 |
| None of these | 03 (03.2%) | 03 (05.6%) | 0 | 0.256 |