Identification errors in pathology and laboratory medicine
Section snippets
Definitions and conceptual framework
For the purposes of this review, the terms “specimen identification error,” “patient identification error,” “laboratory identification error,” and simply “identification error” are used interchangeably. Any result that is reported for the wrong specimen (or that would have been reported for the wrong specimen without some intervention) is considered an identification error. It is immaterial whether the error resulted from the actions of laboratory staff or non–laboratory staff or as a result of
Detecting identification errors
It is generally agreed that routine case-finding of identification errors in normal laboratory practice grossly underestimates the frequency with which identification errors actually occur. Most errors go undetected.
Some identification errors are detected by laboratory staff before a result is verified, often when the name or other identifying information on a specimen label does not match the information on the paper requisition. Few laboratories have any system in place for monitoring these
General issues
Our knowledge of the frequency with which identification errors occur in pathology and laboratory medicine is fragmentary. Most estimates rely on imperfect case finding (dependence on clinical or laboratory staff to detect and report errors), on specialized areas of the laboratory such as transfusion medicine that are not representative of high-volume chemistry and hematology operations, and on studies conducted in single institutions. The multi-institutional data that exist suggest that the
Regulatory and public interest in identification errors
Regulatory and accrediting agencies have espoused standards related to the proper identification of patients and specimens, and a number of articles in the lay press have focused on some of the more dramatic consequences of identification errors.
CAP's Laboratory Accreditation Program requires compliance with a number of standards designed to ensure proper patient and specimen identification. Phlebotomists are required to identify patients positively by checking at least two identifiers before
Reduction of identification errors
The authors are aware of no published controlled studies that have examined the impact of specific strategies to reduce identification errors. This gap in the research literature is somewhat surprising, given the scope of the problem and the commercial availability of expensive systems that purport to improve the accuracy with which patients and specimens are identified.
What works, and what does not? In the absence of controlled studies, it is probably best to begin by carefully analyzing the
Future research
Our understanding of identification errors in laboratory medicine would be significantly enhanced by a careful multi-institutional study of incorrectly identified specimens, using properly collected second specimens and biometric identification techniques as the gold standard for determining patient identity. Antibody profiling, microsatellite analysis, or blood-group testing could be used to determine which specimens were incorrectly identified. Such a study would provide a baseline rate of
References (22)
Human error
(1990)- et al.
Whose tumor is this? FISHing for the answer
Mod Pathol
(1995) - et al.
Rapid identification of patient specimens with microsatellite DNA markers
Mod Pathol
(1996) - et al.
Comparing near misses with actual mistransfusion events: a more accurate reflection of transfusion errors
Br J Haematol
(2000) Patients as their own controls: use of the computer to identify “laboratory error”
Clin Chem
(1975)- et al.
Wristband errors: data analysis and critique. Q-PROBES Study 93-10
(1993) - et al.
Wristband errors in small hospitals. A College of American Pathologists' Q-PROBES study of quality issues in patient identification
Lab Med
(1997) - et al.
Wristband identification error reporting in 712 hospitals. A College of American Pathologists' Q-PROBES study of quality issues in transfusion practice
Arch Pathol Lab Med
(1993) - et al.
Wristband identification reporting errors: data analysis and critique. Q-PROBES Study 95–07
(1995) - et al.
Continuous wristband monitoring over 2 years decreases identification errors. A College of American Pathologists Q-TRACKS study
Arch Pathol Lab Med
(2003)
A report of 104 transfusion errors in New York state
Transfusion
Cited by (86)
Common Medical Errors in Pediatric Emergency Medicine
2019, Clinical Pediatric Emergency MedicineSample processing and specimen misidentification issues: major sources of pre-analytical errors
2019, Accurate Results in the Clinical Laboratory: A Guide to Error Detection and Correction, Second EditionBar Coding and Tracking in Pathology
2016, Clinics in Laboratory MedicineErrors encountered in the diagnostic pathway: A prospective single-institution study
2023, Journal of Cutaneous Pathology