Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 1 004 115 cases from 417 institutions.

OBJECTIVE: To examine and suggest improvements for deficiencies occurring in the specimen identification and accessioning process in the surgical pathology laboratory.
DESIGN: Using the College of American Pathologists' and the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations' requirements as the standard, each laboratory was asked to prospectively document deficiencies in specimen identification and accessioning for 4 months, or until a maximum of 4000 cases or 400 deficiencies were accrued. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred seventeen laboratories in the College of American Pathologists' voluntary quality improvement program, Q-Probes, participated in this study.
RESULTS: Identification and accessioning deficiencies were found in 60 042 (6%) out of a total 1 004 115 cases accessioned (median deficiency rate of 3.4%). Errors related to specimen identification accounted for 9.6% of these deficiencies, discrepant or missing information items were present in 77%, and 3.6% involved specimen handling. The most common deficiency was "no clinical history or diagnosis present on the requisition slip," which represented 40% of all deficiencies. Deficiencies were most often detected by the person assigned to accessioning duties or by histology personnel. In 66% of cases, no action was taken to remedy the deficiency, but this varied dramatically according to the specific type of deficiency. An action was taken to remedy deficiencies in 69% of cases involving specimen identification errors, in 58% of specimen handling errors, and in 27% of cases with discrepant or missing information. Peer group stratifiers were associated with a lower deficiency rate. Laboratories with lower numbers (<15 000) of accessioned cases and laboratories with a formal written plan for the detection of errors in accessioning and specimen identification reported lower rates of deficiencies. Factors that correlated with a higher rate of deficiencies included submitting the specimen container and requisition slip in a unique secondary container (P<.005) and labeling the specimen container with only a patient's name or unique patient identification number (as opposed to both identifiers).
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of deficiencies occurring in surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning are related to missing or inaccurate clinical information. Deficiencies are detected in multiple locations, including areas not typically thought of as quality check points, such as transcription. A variable amount of effort occurs to rectify deficiencies; this effort is largely dependent on the type of deficiency involved. Finally, laboratories with a formal error detection plan had fewer deficiencies.