Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. News & Views
  2. Failed phlebotomy?...
  3. Failed phlebotomy? Think universal precautions
Letters Failed phlebotomy? Think William Harvey

Failed phlebotomy? Think universal precautions

BMJ 2015; 350 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h559 (Published 05 February 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h559

All rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.

From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.

The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.

Re: Failed phlebotomy? Think universal precautions, but not always

I agree in principle but as someone who gets asked to take blood from those when others have had difficulty I have to admit that I often can only palate some veins without gloves. The last on line phlebotomy training I saw gave gloves as being optional. Please can we keep this, yes ideally but not always..

Competing interests: No competing interests

06 February 2015
Nicholas Sharvill
Gp
Balmoral surgery
Back to top