Abstract
Purpose
Typical barriers to venous blood collection for wellness testing include discomfort, time spent, and collection site accessibility. This study assessed individuals’ experience, satisfaction, and preference associated with a FDA-cleared blood-collection device, the BD MiniDraw™ Capillary Blood Collection System (BD MiniDraw), in retail locations.
Patients and Methods
A total of 113 individuals (≥18 years) with venous blood collection experience were enrolled; 107 completed the study. A pre-collection survey gathered information on demographics and past experiences with healthcare and venous blood collection settings. BD MiniDraw collection was conducted at three retail sites (two pharmacies and one grocery store) by trained healthcare workers using the Babson BetterWay blood testing service model. A follow up survey was performed two weeks later to determine experience with, and preference for, BD MiniDraw in terms of staff professionalism, blood collection location, blood collection time, and staff trustworthiness.
Results
Among the 107 participants, 74 (69%) were female and 33 (31%) were male; the mean age was 49 years (range=18–71 years). Sixty-six (62%) participants viewed their prior venipuncture experience as “somewhat” or “very” positive. Following capillary collection, 96 (90%) participants expressed a “somewhat” or “very” positive experience with BD MiniDraw at a retail location. In particular, “very satisfied” responses were given for location (87/107; 81%) and collection time (78/1407; 73%). In a subset of respondents (n=89), those reasons (location and time savings) were most frequent for likelihood of future use. Ninety-nine participants (92%) rated the retail blood collection team as “very” or “extremely” trustworthy. Overall, 90 participants (84%) “strongly preferred” (56/107; 52%), “somewhat preferred” (14/107; 13%), or had “no preference” (20/107; 19%) for BD MiniDraw, compared to traditional venous blood collection.
Conclusion
Most participants conveyed a preference for BD MiniDraw, primarily based on the blood collection retail location, perceived time savings, and professionalism and trustworthiness of the staff.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following from Becton, Dickinson and Company, BD Life Sciences — Diagnostic Solutions: Valentin Parvu, PhD, for statistical support, and Devin S. Gary, PhD and Dorsey Mills for their input on the content of this manuscript and editorial assistance. We thank Bovitz Inc. (Encino, California) for conducting the survey and providing data analysis. The individuals acknowledged here have no additional funding or additional compensation to disclose.
This work was presented at the 2023 SGIM Annual Meeting and the 2023 Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (Formerly AACC) Pre-analytical Conference, and the 2023 APHA Annual Meeting.
Author Contributions
All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
MP, BA, and NA-T are employees of Becton, Dickinson and Company, the sponsor of the study. SP was an employee of Becton, Dickinson and Company during the conduct of the study and is now affiliated with Standard Process, Palmyra, WI, USA. JWJ is an employee of Babson Diagnostics. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.