Literature DB >> 20702784

Patient misidentifications caused by errors in standard bar code technology.

Marion L Snyder1, Alexis Carter, Karen Jenkins, Corinne R Fantz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bar code technology has decreased transcription errors in many healthcare applications. However, we have found that linear bar code identification methods are not failsafe. In this study, we sought to identify the sources of bar code decoding errors that generated incorrect patient identifiers when bar codes were scanned for point-of-care glucose testing and to develop solutions to prevent their occurrence.
METHODS: We identified misread wristband bar codes, removed them from service, and rescanned them by using 5 different scanner models. Bar codes were reprinted in pristine condition for use as controls. We determined error rates for each bar code-scanner pair and manually calculated internal bar code data integrity checks.
RESULTS: As many as 3 incorrect patient identifiers were generated from a single bar code. Minor bar code imperfections, failure to control for bar code scanner resolution requirements, and less than optimal printed bar code orientation were confirmed as sources of these errors. Of the scanner models tested, the Roche ACCU-CHEK® glucometer had the highest error rate. The internal data integrity check system did not detect these errors.
CONCLUSIONS: Bar code-related patient misidentifications can occur. In the worst case, misidentified patient results could have been transmitted to the incorrect patient medical record. This report has profound implications not only for point-of-care testing but also for bar coded medication administration, transfusion recipient certification systems, and other areas where patient misidentifications can be life-threatening. Careful control of bar code scanning and printing equipment specifications will minimize this threat to patient safety. Ultimately, healthcare device manufacturers should adopt more robust and higher fidelity alternatives to linear bar code symbologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20702784     DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.150094

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  8 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.  Recommendations for the electronic pre-transfusion check at the bedside.

Authors:  Akimichi Ohsaka; Hidefumi Kato; Shuichi Kino; Kinuyo Kawabata; Junichi Kitazawa; Tatsuya Sugimoto; Akihiro Takeshita; Kyoko Baba; Motohiro Hamaguchi; Yasuhiko Fujii; Kayo Horiuchi; Yuji Yonemura; Isao Hamaguchi; Makoto Handa
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 3.443

3.  Usefulness of biological fingerprint in magnetic resonance imaging for patient verification.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Ueda; Junji Morishita; Shohei Kudomi; Katsuhiko Ueda
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  Reducing patient identification errors related to glucose point-of-care testing.

Authors:  Gaurav Alreja; Namrata Setia; James Nichols; Liron Pantanowitz
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2011-05-11

5.  Recommendations for Using Barcode in Hospital Process.

Authors:  Peyman Rezaei Hachesu; Leila Zyaei; Hadi Hassankhani
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2016-06-04

6.  Tissue microarray design and construction for scientific, industrial and diagnostic use.

Authors:  Daniela Pilla; Francesca M Bosisio; Roberto Marotta; Stefano Faggi; Paolo Forlani; Maurizio Falavigna; Ida Biunno; Emanuele Martella; Pasquale De Blasio; Simone Borghesi; Giorgio Cattoretti
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2012-12-20

7.  Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice.

Authors:  Ian Litchfield; Louise Bentham; Richard Lilford; Richard J McManus; Ann Hill; Sheila Greenfield
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 7.035

8.  Measuring the rate of manual transcription error in outpatient point-of-care testing.

Authors:  James A Mays; Patrick C Mathias
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.497

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.