Identification errors in pathology and laboratory medicine

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2004.05.013Get rights and content

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

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (22)

  • J. Reason

    Human error

    (1990)
  • M.A. Riopel et al.

    Whose tumor is this? FISHing for the answer

    Mod Pathol

    (1995)
  • T.D. Kessis et al.

    Rapid identification of patient specimens with microsatellite DNA markers

    Mod Pathol

    (1996)
  • J. Ibojie et al.

    Comparing near misses with actual mistransfusion events: a more accurate reflection of transfusion errors

    Br J Haematol

    (2000)
  • J.H. Ladenson

    Patients as their own controls: use of the computer to identify “laboratory error”

    Clin Chem

    (1975)
  • J.C. Dale et al.

    Wristband errors: data analysis and critique. Q-PROBES Study 93-10

    (1993)
  • J.C. Dale et al.

    Wristband errors in small hospitals. A College of American Pathologists' Q-PROBES study of quality issues in patient identification

    Lab Med

    (1997)
  • S.W. Renner 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)
  • S.W. Renner et al.

    Wristband identification reporting errors: data analysis and critique. Q-PROBES Study 95–07

    (1995)
  • P.J. Howanitz et al.

    Continuous wristband monitoring over 2 years decreases identification errors. A College of American Pathologists Q-TRACKS study

    Arch Pathol Lab Med

    (2003)
  • J.V. Linden et al.

    A report of 104 transfusion errors in New York state

    Transfusion

    (2002)
  • Cited by (86)

    • Common Medical Errors in Pediatric Emergency Medicine

      2019, Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine
    • Sample 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 Edition
    • Bar Coding and Tracking in Pathology

      2016, Clinics in Laboratory Medicine
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text