Literature DB >> 18834220

Specimen labeling errors: a Q-probes analysis of 147 clinical laboratories.

Elizabeth A Wagar1, Ana K Stankovic, Stephen Raab, Raouf E Nakhleh, Molly K Walsh.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Accurate specimen identification is critical for quality patient care. Improperly identified specimens can result in delayed diagnosis, additional laboratory testing, treatment of the wrong patient for the wrong disease, and severe transfusion reactions. Specimen identification errors have been reported to occur at rates of 0.1% to 5%.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of labeling errors in a multi-institutional survey.
DESIGN: Labeling errors were categorized as: (1) mislabeled, (2) unlabeled, (3) partially labeled, (4) incompletely labeled, and (5) illegible label. Blood specimens for routine or stat chemistry, hematology, and coagulation testing were included. Labeling error rates were calculated for each participant and tested for associations with institutional demographic and practice variable information.
RESULTS: More than 3.3 million specimen labels were reviewed by 147 laboratories. Labeling errors were identified at a rate of 0.92 per 1000 labels. Two variables were statistically associated with lower labeling error rates: (1) laboratories with current, ongoing quality monitors for specimen identification (P = .008) and (2) institutions with 24/7 phlebotomy services for inpatients (P = .02). Most institutions had written policies for specimen labeling at the bedside or in outpatient phlebotomy areas (96% and 98%, respectively). Allowance of relabeling of blood specimens by primary collecting personnel was reported by 42% of institutions.
CONCLUSIONS: Laboratories actively engaged in ongoing specimen labeling quality monitors had fewer specimen labeling errors. Also, 24/7 phlebotomy services were associated with lower specimen error rates. Establishing quality metrics for specimen labeling and deploying 24/7 phlebotomy operations may contribute to improving the accuracy of specimen labeling for the clinical laboratory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18834220     DOI: 10.5858/2008-132-1617-SLEAQA

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  12 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

2.  Clinical care for opioid-using pregnant and postpartum women: the role of obstetric providers.

Authors:  Hendrée E Jones; Krisanna Deppen; Mark L Hudak; Lisa Leffert; Carol McClelland; Leyla Sahin; Jacquelyn Starer; Mishka Terplan; John M Thorp; James Walsh; Andreea A Creanga
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  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

4.  Factors Affecting Quality of Laboratory Result During Ordering, Handling, and Testing of the Patient's Specimen at Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Science Comprehensive Specialized Hospital.

Authors:  Demissie Assegu Fenta; Musa Mohammed Ali
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2020-08-18

5.  Fluorescence detection, enumeration and characterization of single circulating cells in vivo: technology, applications and future prospects.

Authors:  Carolin Hartmann; Roshani Patil; Charles P Lin; Mark Niedre
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Fluorescence Labeling of Circulating Tumor Cells with a Folate Receptor-Targeted Molecular Probe for Diffuse In Vivo Flow Cytometry.

Authors:  Roshani A Patil; Madduri Srinivasarao; Mansoor M Amiji; Philip S Low; Mark Niedre
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.488

7.  Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results.

Authors:  Marianna J Bledsoe; William E Grizzle; Brian J Clark; Nikolajs Zeps
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Effectiveness of Laboratory Practices to Reducing Patient Misidentification Due to Specimen Labeling Errors at the Time of Specimen Collection in Healthcare Settings: LMBP™ Systematic Review.

Authors:  Paramjit Sandhu; Kakali Bandyopadhyay; Dennis J Ernst; William Hunt; Thomas H Taylor; Rebecca Birch; John Krolak; Sharon Geaghan
Journal:  J Appl Lab Med       Date:  2017-09

9.  Markers for screening lynch syndrome are reliable and useful for identifying the specimen mislabeling.

Authors:  Sun-Ju Byeon; Jiwoon Choi; Kyung Han Nam; Bo-Gun Jang; Hee Eun Lee; Min A Kim; Woo Ho Kim
Journal:  Korean J Pathol       Date:  2012-04-25

10.  Reduction in Hospital-Wide Clinical Laboratory Specimen Identification Errors following Process Interventions: A 10-Year Retrospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Hsiao-Chen Ning; Chia-Ni Lin; Daniel Tsun-Yee Chiu; Yung-Ta Chang; Chiao-Ni Wen; Shu-Yu Peng; Tsung-Lan Chu; Hsin-Ming Yu; Tsu-Lan Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.