STUDY OBJECTIVE: We measure the rate of emergency department (ED) specimen processing error reduction after implementation of an electronic physician order entry system paired with a bar-coded specimen labeling process. METHODS: A cohort pre- and postintervention study was conducted in the ED during a 61-month period ending September 2008 in a large urban teaching hospital. Historically, laboratory order and requisition processing was done by hand. Interventions included implementing an ED-specific electronic documentation and information system, which included physician order entry with patient verification through bar-coded wristbands and bar-coded specimen labels. The main outcome measure was processing error rate, defined as unlabeled/mislabeled/wrong patient specimen or requisition. Pre- and postimplementation data were tabulated monthly and compared in aggregate by χ(2) test. The contribution of ED error to total institution specimen error was also calculated. RESULTS: Of the 724,465 specimens collected preintervention, 3,007 (0.42%) were recorded as errors versus 379 errors (0.11%) of 334,039 specimens collected postintervention, which represents a 74% relative and 0.31% absolute decrease (95% confidence interval 0.28% to 0.32%). The proportion of institutional errors contributed by the ED was reduced from 20.4% to 11.4%, a 44% relative and 9.0% absolute reduction (95% confidence interval 7.7% to 10.3%). Subanalysis revealed that the majority of continued errors occur when the physician order entry/bar-code system could not be used (eg, blood bank or surgical pathology specimens). CONCLUSION: Combining an electronic physician order entry with bar-coded patient verification and electronic documentation and information system-generated specimen labels can significantly reduce ED specimen-related errors, with sizable influence on institutional specimen-related errors. Continued use of hand labeling and processing for special specimens appears inadvisable, though the cost-effectiveness of this intervention has not been established.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We measure the rate of emergency department (ED) specimen processing error reduction after implementation of an electronic physician order entry system paired with a bar-coded specimen labeling process. METHODS: A cohort pre- and postintervention study was conducted in the ED during a 61-month period ending September 2008 in a large urban teaching hospital. Historically, laboratory order and requisition processing was done by hand. Interventions included implementing an ED-specific electronic documentation and information system, which included physician order entry with patient verification through bar-coded wristbands and bar-coded specimen labels. The main outcome measure was processing error rate, defined as unlabeled/mislabeled/wrong patient specimen or requisition. Pre- and postimplementation data were tabulated monthly and compared in aggregate by χ(2) test. The contribution of ED error to total institution specimen error was also calculated. RESULTS: Of the 724,465 specimens collected preintervention, 3,007 (0.42%) were recorded as errors versus 379 errors (0.11%) of 334,039 specimens collected postintervention, which represents a 74% relative and 0.31% absolute decrease (95% confidence interval 0.28% to 0.32%). The proportion of institutional errors contributed by the ED was reduced from 20.4% to 11.4%, a 44% relative and 9.0% absolute reduction (95% confidence interval 7.7% to 10.3%). Subanalysis revealed that the majority of continued errors occur when the physician order entry/bar-code system could not be used (eg, blood bank or surgical pathology specimens). CONCLUSION: Combining an electronic physician order entry with bar-coded patient verification and electronic documentation and information system-generated specimen labels can significantly reduce ED specimen-related errors, with sizable influence on institutional specimen-related errors. Continued use of hand labeling and processing for special specimens appears inadvisable, though the cost-effectiveness of this intervention has not been established.
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