M Khoury1, L Burnett, M A Mackay. 1. Faculty of Clinical Chemistry, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology (Gore Hill Campus), Sydney, NSW.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure transcription and analytical errors made by Australian chemical pathology laboratories. DESIGN: Retrospective data collection covering the period 1 November 1993 to 1 April 1994. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen pathology laboratories in five Australian States (seven in the public sector, and seven in the private sector). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Error rates in transcribing information from request forms to computer record systems, and laboratory performance on chemical analysis. RESULTS: Pathology laboratories had a transcription-error rate of up to 39% and an error rate of up to 26% for analytical results. The worst-performing laboratory had errors (of patient identification or results of analysis) in 46% of requests. The three best-performing laboratories achieved 85% error-free reporting, with one achieving 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Error rates in Australian pathology laboratories vary widely, but may be as high as 46% for all specimens in some laboratories. The types of errors reported were under the control of the laboratory, and would affect the accuracy of reported pathology test results, with potential adverse outcomes for patient care and inefficient use of health-care resources. There is a need to establish broader quality assurance programs and performance requirements to reduce these types of error.
OBJECTIVE: To measure transcription and analytical errors made by Australian chemical pathology laboratories. DESIGN: Retrospective data collection covering the period 1 November 1993 to 1 April 1994. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen pathology laboratories in five Australian States (seven in the public sector, and seven in the private sector). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Error rates in transcribing information from request forms to computer record systems, and laboratory performance on chemical analysis. RESULTS: Pathology laboratories had a transcription-error rate of up to 39% and an error rate of up to 26% for analytical results. The worst-performing laboratory had errors (of patient identification or results of analysis) in 46% of requests. The three best-performing laboratories achieved 85% error-free reporting, with one achieving 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Error rates in Australian pathology laboratories vary widely, but may be as high as 46% for all specimens in some laboratories. The types of errors reported were under the control of the laboratory, and would affect the accuracy of reported pathology test results, with potential adverse outcomes for patient care and inefficient use of health-care resources. There is a need to establish broader quality assurance programs and performance requirements to reduce these types of error.
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
Authors: Gunn B B Kristensen; Kristin Moberg Aakre; Ann Helen Kristoffersen; Sverre Sandberg Journal: Biochem Med (Zagreb) Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 2.313