OBJECTIVES: This is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: A total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05-6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28-6.67). CONCLUSIONS: Barcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice." The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.
OBJECTIVES: This is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: A total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05-6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28-6.67). CONCLUSIONS: Barcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice." The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.
Authors: James H Nichols; Cathy Bartholomew; Mary Brunton; Carlos Cintron; Sheila Elliott; Joan McGirr; Deborah Morsi; Sue Scott; Joseph Seipel; Daisy Sinha Journal: Clin Leadersh Manag Rev Date: 2004 Nov-Dec
Authors: Martin A Makary; Jonathan Epstein; Peter J Pronovost; E Anne Millman; Emily C Hartmann; Julie A Freischlag Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-01-24 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Elizabeth A Wagar; Lorraine Tamashiro; Bushra Yasin; Lee Hilborne; David A Bruckner Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Véronique Tack; Kelly Dufraing; Zandra C Deans; Han J van Krieken; Elisabeth M C Dequeker Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2017-03-26 Impact factor: 4.064
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
Authors: Lasse L Samson; Louise Pape-Haugaard; Michelle C Meltzer; Martin Fuchs; Henrik C Schønheyder; Ole Hejlesen Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 4.773