Article

Patient safety in the clinical laboratory: a longitudinal analysis of specimen identification errors.

University of California, Los Angeles, Clinical Laboratories, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Box 951732, AL-206 CHS 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1732, USA.
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.78). 11/2006; 130(11):1662-8. DOI: 10.1043/1543-2165(2006)130[1662:PSITCL]2.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patient safety is an increasingly visible and important mission for clinical laboratories. Attention to improving processes related to patient identification and specimen labeling is being paid by accreditation and regulatory organizations because errors in these areas that jeopardize patient safety are common and avoidable through improvement in the total testing process.
To assess patient identification and specimen labeling improvement after multiple implementation projects using longitudinal statistical tools.
Specimen errors were categorized by a multidisciplinary health care team. Patient identification errors were grouped into 3 categories: (1) specimen/requisition mismatch, (2) unlabeled specimens, and (3) mislabeled specimens. Specimens with these types of identification errors were compared preimplementation and postimplementation for 3 patient safety projects: (1) reorganization of phlebotomy (4 months); (2) introduction of an electronic event reporting system (10 months); and (3) activation of an automated processing system (14 months) for a 24-month period, using trend analysis and Student t test statistics.
Of 16,632 total specimen errors, mislabeled specimens, requisition mismatches, and unlabeled specimens represented 1.0%, 6.3%, and 4.6% of errors, respectively. Student t test showed a significant decrease in the most serious error, mislabeled specimens (P < .001) when compared to before implementation of the 3 patient safety projects. Trend analysis demonstrated decreases in all 3 error types for 26 months.
Applying performance-improvement strategies that focus longitudinally on specimen labeling errors can significantly reduce errors, therefore improving patient safety. This is an important area in which laboratory professionals, working in interdisciplinary teams, can improve safety and outcomes of care.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
177 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The identification of reliable quality indicators (QIs) is a crucial step in enabling users to quantify the quality of laboratory services. The current lack of attention to extra-laboratory factors is in stark contrast to the body of evidence pointing to the multitude of errors that continue to occur, particularly in the pre-analytical phase. The ISO 15189: 2012 standard for laboratory accreditation defines the pre-analytical phase, and recognizes the need to evaluate, monitor and improve all the procedures and processes in the initial phase of the testing cycle, including those performed in the phase of requesting tests and collecting samples, the so-called "pre-pre-analytical phase". Therefore, QIs should allow the identification of errors and non-conformities that can occur in all steps of the pre-analytical phase. Traditionally, pre-analytical errors are grouped into identification and sample problems. However, appropriate test requesting and complete request forms are now recognized as fundamental components in providing valuable laboratory services. The model of QIs developed by the Working Group of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) includes indicators related to both identification and sample problems as well as all other pre-analytical defects, including those in test requesting and request forms. It, moreover, provides the framework (with objective criteria) necessary for promoting the harmonization of available QIs in the pre-analytical phase.
    Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry 09/2013; · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study describes quality indicators for the pre-analytical process, grouping errors according to patient risk as critical or major, and assesses their evaluation over a five-year period.
    Biochemia Medica 01/2014; 24(2):248-57. · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality indicators (QIs) measure the extent to which set targets are attained and provide a quantitative basis for achieving improvement in care and, in particular, laboratory services. A body of evidence collected in recent years has demonstrated that most errors fall outside the analytical phase, while the pre- and post-analytical steps have been found to be more vulnerable to the risk of error. However, the current lack of attention to extra-laboratory factors and related QIs prevent clinical laboratories from effectively improving total quality and reducing errors. Errors in the pre-analytical phase, which account for 50% to 75% of all laboratory errors, have long been included in the 'identification and sample problems' category. However, according to the International Standard for medical laboratory accreditation and a patient-centered view, some additional QIs are needed. In particular, there is a need to measure the appropriateness of all test request and request forms, as well as the quality of sample transportation. The QIs model developed by a working group of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) is a valuable starting point for promoting the harmonization of available QIs, but further efforts should be made to achieve a consensus on the road map for harmonization.
    Biochemia Medica 02/2014; 24(1):105-113. · 1.87 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
69 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014