Neonatal Capillary Blood Sampling Procedure: A Scoping Review.

Authors

Janene Douglas, Deanne August, Jacqueline Cunninghame, Natasha Roberts

Published in

Hospital pediatrics. Sep 14, 2026. Epub Sep 14, 2026.

Abstract

Neonatal capillary blood sampling is common and painful, but procedural elements (eg, warming) appear inconsistent, with the impact on sampling effectiveness and procedural best practice unclear.
To identify existing procedural practices and knowledge gaps to inform best practice for neonatal capillary blood sampling and guide procedural use in future research.
The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology was used, with sources including peer-reviewed articles between 2005 and 2025 from PubMed, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO host), and Cochrane Library, focused on the neonatal population. Screening was completed in Covidence by 2 independent authors (third for conflicts) and extracted into Airtable with results reported descriptively.
Of the 2846 articles identified, 73 met criteria, originating predominantly from the European region (n = 36). Most were randomized controlled trials (n = 47), followed by observational studies (n = 9) and expert opinion (n = 6). Primary outcomes reported (n = 63/73) were predominantly pain assessments (n = 46) and blood sample quality (n = 14). Procedural practices were inconsistently reported across articles-eg, decontamination (33/73 [45%]), supportive care (38/73 [52%]), and lancing device type used (40/73 [55%]). Within articles reporting roles (n = 60/73), nurses/midwives were commonly the proceduralist (n = 30 [50%]), followed by a comforter role (n = 14 [23%]), in addition to parents (n = 20 [33%]). Successful procedural characteristics (12/73) were reported as (1) sufficient blood (1 puncture/incision; n = 5), (2) minimal squeezing/free-flowing blood droplets (n = 3), (3) no hemolysis/adequate blood (n = 2), (4) no hemolysis/free-flowing blood (n = 1), and (5) minimal squeezing/procedure time (n = 1).
Inconsistent reporting on procedural elements and device use impedes procedural best-practice evolution and should be a priority of future research.

PMID:
42732897
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 14 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.