Literature DB >> 30549289

Electronic patient identification for sample labeling reduces wrong blood in tube errors.

Richard M Kaufman1, Anh Dinh2, Claudia S Cohn3, Mark K Fung4, Jed Gorlin5, Stacy Melanson1, Michael F Murphy6, Alyssa Ziman7, Allahna L Elahie8, Danielle Chasse9, Lynsi Degree4, Nancy M Dunbar9, Walter H Dzik10, Peter Flanagan11, Kimberly Gabert12, Tina S Ipe13, Bryon Jackson14, Debra Lane15, Elisabetta Raspollini16, Charles Ray9, Yudit Sharon17, Martin Ellis17, Kathleen Selleng18, Julie Staves6, Philip Yu19, Michelle Zeller8, Mark Yazer12.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Wrong blood in tube (WBIT) errors are a preventable cause of ABO-mismatched RBC transfusions. Electronic patient identification systems (e.g., scanning a patient's wristband barcode before pretransfusion sample collection) are thought to reduce WBIT errors, but the effectiveness of these systems is unclear. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Part 1: Using retrospective data, we compared pretransfusion sample WBIT rates at hospitals using manual patient identification (n = 16 sites; >1.6 million samples) with WBIT rates at hospitals using electronic patient identification for some or all sample collections (n = 4 sites; >0.5 million samples). Also, we compared WBIT rates after implementation of electronic patient identification with preimplementation WBIT rates. Causes and frequencies of WBIT errors were evaluated at each site. Part 2: Transfusion service laboratories (n = 18) prospectively typed mislabeled (rejected) samples (n = 2844) to determine WBIT rates among samples with minor labeling errors.
RESULTS: Part 1: The overall unadjusted WBIT rate at sites using manual patient identification was 1:10,110 versus 1:35,806 for sites using electronic identification (p < 0.0001). Correcting for repeat samples and silent WBIT errors yielded overall adjusted WBIT rates of 1:3046 for sites using manual identification and 1:14,606 for sites using electronic identification (p < 0.0001), with wide variation among individual sites. Part 2: The unadjusted WBIT rate among mislabeled (rejected) samples was 1:71 (adjusted WBIT rate, 1:28).
CONCLUSION: In this study, using electronic patient identification at the time of pretransfusion sample collection was associated with approximately fivefold fewer WBIT errors compared with using manual patient identification. WBIT rates were high among mislabeled (rejected) samples, confirming that rejecting samples with even minor labeling errors helps mitigate the risk of ABO-incompatible transfusions.
© 2018 AABB.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30549289     DOI: 10.1111/trf.15102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transfusion        ISSN: 0041-1132            Impact factor:   3.157


  3 in total

1.  Using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Improving Nursing Blood Sampling at an International Specialized Cancer Center.

Authors:  Anas Haroun; Majeda A Al-Ruzzieh; Najah Hussien; Abdelrahman Masa'ad; Rateb Hassoneh; Ghada Abu Alrub; Omar Ayaad
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2021-04-01

2.  How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Authors:  Evan M Bloch; Aaron A R Tobian; Shmuel Shoham; Daniel F Hanley; Thomas J Gniadek; Edward R Cachay; Barry R Meisenberg; Kimberly Kafka; Christi Marshall; Sonya L Heath; Aarthi Shenoy; James H Paxton; Adam Levine; Donald Forthal; Yuriko Fukuta; Moises A Huaman; Alyssa Ziman; Jill Adamski; Jonathan Gerber; Daniel Cruser; Seble G Kassaye; Giselle S Mosnaim; Bela Patel; Ryan A Metcalf; Shweta Anjan; Ronald B Reisler; Anusha Yarava; Karen Lane; Nichol McBee; Amy Gawad; Jay S Raval; Martin Zand; Matthew Abinante; Patrick B Broderick; Arturo Casadevall; David Sullivan; Kelly A Gebo
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 3.337

3.  Implementation of a blood bank generated tube for second blood group determination: Challenges, yield, and cost.

Authors:  Noora Obaidallah; Helen Downie; Connie Colavecchia; Jeannie Callum; Yulia Lin
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.337

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.