Monitoring and capturing patient identification errors in laboratory medicine. (May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Leonard, Ann; Boran, Gerard; Kane, Anne; Cornes, Michael
• Is Part Of: Annals of clinical biochemistry. Volume 57:Number 3(2020:May)
• Page Start: 266
• Page End: 270
• Publication Date: 2020-05
• Subjects: Preanalytical -- patient identification -- labelling -- error -- survey; Clinical chemistry -- Periodicals; Clinical biochemistry -- Periodicals; 616.075
• DOI: 10.1177/0004563220903076
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0004-5632

Abstract

Background: Specimen labelling and patient identification are significant contributors to the rate of error in the preanalytical phase of laboratory medicine. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices for patient identification and specimen labelling errors in Irish clinical laboratories. Methods: A survey was developed by the Clinical Biochemistry Unit, Trinity College Dublin and the Irish External Quality Assessment Scheme (IEQAS), with the intention of gathering key information from each laboratory. Thirty-nine questions were organized into seven subsections covering general information, labelling requirements, information availability, rejection criteria, error monitoring, error reporting and interest in participation in an external quality assessment scheme. The survey was sent electronically to 63 laboratory quality managers at 55 laboratories in Ireland. Results: A total of 39 responses (61% response rate) provided information on 94 separate laboratory departments or disciplines. Laboratories reported varying practices and requirements for labelling specimens and all accepted handwritten preprinted request forms. All (100%) respondents had defined rejection criteria both for specimen labelling and request form completion. Unsurprisingly, the rejection criteria differed between the various laboratory disciplines. Almost all respondents provided information to clinical staff on labelling requirements, but just over half provided training on the same. A large percentage of laboratories (74%) monitored the rate of specimen-labelling errors; however, only 46% had defined target limits for acceptable rates of error. Conclusion: The survey observed a wide variation in collection, recording and monitoring of errors but also confirmed significant interest in improving preanalytical monitoring and data collection.