Patient Experience with Phlebotomy and Laboratory Testing at a University Hospital: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with the phlebotomy center or the laboratory in general is often only infrequently measured in single touchpoint surveys. In addition, patient complaints are scarce and patients rarely proactively provide feedback by themselves. The aim of this single-center study was to explore patient satisfaction and perceived improvement opportunities regarding phlebotomy and laboratory testing at a university hospital phlebotomy center. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study combining survey data (including Net Promoter Score [NPS] and Customer Effort Score [CES], n = 109) and semi-structured interviews with 8 patients frequently visiting the phlebotomy center. RESULTS: In the survey, 34.9% of the respondents were promoters, 53.2% were passives, and 7.3% were detractors, resulting in an NPS of 27.6%. The median CES was 1 (interquartile range 1-2), indicating low perceived effort. Interview findings suggested that while the service was considered well-organized, "waiting"-rather than the phlebotomy procedure itself-emerged as the most important theme. Key recommendations included reducing waiting times, improving the waiting area, providing more instructions on the phlebotomy process, offering reliable online information on laboratory tests and results, and facilitating phlebotomy close to home. While most recommendations addressed functional needs, some also targeted emotional needs (e.g., free coffee, private seating). CONCLUSIONS: This mixed method study illustrates how involving patients in examining the laboratory-related patient journey can yield concrete, patient-reported insights and suggestions for improvement. Implementing recommendations derived by open-ended survey responses and interviews is likely to improve the patient journey, on both functional and emotional levels.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfag165
Primary Topic
Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Patient Experience with Phlebotomy and Laboratory Testing at a University Hospital: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study

Wendy P. J. den Elzen, Róbert de Jonge, Judith Gillis, Helena Chon et al.
1 links
The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
article

Patient Experience with Phlebotomy and Laboratory Testing at a University Hospital: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study

Wendy P. J. den Elzen, Róbert de Jonge, Judith Gillis, Helena Chon, Maurits C F J de Rotte, Marjorie G G Rosheuvel, Wilfred Achthoven
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with the phlebotomy center or the laboratory in general is often only infrequently measured in single touchpoint surveys. In addition, patient complaints are scarce and patients rarely proactively provide feedback by themselves. The aim of this single-center study was to explore patient satisfaction and perceived improvement opportunities regarding phlebotomy and laboratory testing at a university hospital phlebotomy center. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study combining survey data (including Net Promoter Score [NPS] and Customer Effort Score [CES], n = 109) and semi-structured interviews with 8 patients frequently visiting the phlebotomy center. RESULTS: In the survey, 34.9% of the respondents were promoters, 53.2% were passives, and 7.3% were detractors, resulting in an NPS of 27.6%. The median CES was 1 (interquartile range 1-2), indicating low perceived effort. Interview findings suggested that while the service was considered well-organized, "waiting"-rather than the phlebotomy procedure itself-emerged as the most important theme. Key recommendations included reducing waiting times, improving the waiting area, providing more instructions on the phlebotomy process, offering reliable online information on laboratory tests and results, and facilitating phlebotomy close to home. While most recommendations addressed functional needs, some also targeted emotional needs (e.g., free coffee, private seating). CONCLUSIONS: This mixed method study illustrates how involving patients in examining the laboratory-related patient journey can yield concrete, patient-reported insights and suggestions for improvement. Implementing recommendations derived by open-ended survey responses and interviews is likely to improve the patient journey, on both functional and emotional levels.

The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL), Amsterdam Public Health (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism (NL), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL), University of Amsterdam (NL)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon