Literature DB >> 17383521

Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care.

Martin A Makary1, Jonathan Epstein, Peter J Pronovost, E Anne Millman, Emily C Hartmann, Julie A Freischlag.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Communication errors are the primary factor contributing to all types of sentinel events including those involving surgical patients. One type of communication error is mislabeled specimens. The extent to which these errors occur is poorly quantified. We designed a study to measure the incidence and type of specimen identification errors in the surgical patient population.
METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study that included all patients who underwent surgery in an outpatient clinic or hospital operating room and for whom a pathology specimen was sent to the laboratory. The study took place during a 6-month period (October 2004 to April 2005) at an urban, academic medical center. The study's main end-points were the incidence and type of specimen labeling errors in the hospital operating room and the outpatient clinic. The specimen was the unit of analysis. All specimens were screened for "identification errors," which, for the purposes of this study, were defined as any discrepancy between information on the specimen requisition form and the accompanying labeled specimen received in the laboratory. Errors were stratified by the type of identification error, source, location, and type of procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 21,351 surgical specimens were included in the analysis. There were 91 (4.3/1000) surgical specimen identification errors (18, specimen not labeled; 16, empty container; 16, laterality incorrect; 14, incorrect tissue site; 11, incorrect patient; 9, no patient name; and 7, no tissue site). Identification errors occurred in 0.512% of specimens originating from an outpatient clinic (53/10,354 specimens) and 0.346% of specimens originating from an operating room (38/10,997 specimens). Procedures involving the breast were the most common type to involve an identification error (breast = 11, skin = 10, colon = 8); in addition, 59.3% (54/91) of errors were associated with a biopsy procedure. Follow-up was complete in all cases found to have an identification error.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical specimen identification errors are common and pose important risks to all patients. In our study, these events occurred in 4.3 per 1000 surgical specimens or an annualized rate of occurrence of 182 mislabeled specimens per year. Given the frequency with which these errors occur and their potential effect on patients, the rate of surgical specimen identification errors may be an important measure of patient safety. Strategies to reduce the rate of these errors should be a research priority.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17383521     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.08.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  13 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Susan R Snyder; Alessandra M Favoretto; James H Derzon; Robert H Christenson; Stephen E Kahn; Colleen S Shaw; Rich Ann Baetz; Diana Mass; Corinne R Fantz; Stephen S Raab; Milenko J Tanasijevic; Edward B Liebow
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 3.281

Review 2.  Towards optimal pathologic staging of resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Gail E Darling
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2013-10

3.  The feasibility of computer-aided monitoring of the workflow in surgical pathology: a five-year experience.

Authors:  Chih-En Tseng; Hsiu-Huei Chiang; Liang-Yu Shih; Kai-Sheng Liao
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  The impact of a novel lung gross dissection protocol on intrapulmonary lymph node retrieval from lung cancer resection specimens.

Authors:  Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Ransome Eke; Srishti Sareen; Cynthia Leary; LaShundra Coleman; Nicholas Faris; Xinhua Yu; David Spencer
Journal:  Ann Diagn Pathol       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 2.090

Review 5.  The development and implementation of a biopsy safety strategy for oral medicine.

Authors:  D J Finn; B P Rajlawat; D J Holt; S R L Adair; K Kent; E A Field
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 1.626

6.  Tissue contamination causing incorrect diagnosis of breast carcinoma metastatic to skin: An underrecognized complication.

Authors:  Cristian Navarrete-Dechent; Kishwer S Nehal; Klaus J Busam
Journal:  Australas J Dermatol       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 2.875

7.  Specimen Identification Errors in Breast Biopsies: Age Matters. Report of Two Near-Miss Events and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Gary Tozbikian; Mary L Gemignani; Edi Brogi
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 2.431

8.  Audit of lymphadenectomy in lung cancer resections using a specimen collection kit and checklist.

Authors:  Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Srishti Sareen; Ransome Eke; Xinhua Yu; Laura M McHugh; Kemp H Kernstine; Joe B Putnam; Edward T Robbins
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Improving the pathologic evaluation of lung cancer resection specimens.

Authors:  Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Holly L Hilsenbeck; Elizabeth W Sales; Allen Berry; Robert W Jarrett; Christopher S Giampapa; Clara N Finch-Cruz; David Spencer
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08

10.  [What is the meaning of safety in hospitals?].

Authors:  D Eschmann; K Schüttpelz-Brauns; U Obertacke; U Schreiner
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.