Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis

Snyder, Susan; Favoretto, Alessandra M.; Derzon, James H.; Christenson, Robert H.; Kahn, Stephen E.; Shaw, Colleen; Baetz, Rich Ann; Mass, Diana; Fantz, Corinne R.; Raab, Stephen S.; Tanasijevic, Milenko J.; Liebow, Ed

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.019

Cited by 53 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Slightly less than 38% (11 of 29) of the participants in this study used bar coding to identify patients, almost a 5-fold increase over the 8% (10 of 123) of the 2007 Q-Probes study participants that claimed to be using bar codes. 7 Yet the use of bar coding to identify patients by their armbands at the time of specimen collection was not associated with lower mislabeling rates. Other multi-institutional Q-Probes studies have also failed to correlate the use of bar coding with lower specimen mislabeling rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas at least a quarter of participants reported no instances of blood bank specimen mislabeling, at least 75% of participants reported institutional performance that was no better, and if anything a bit worse, than what participants reported in the 2007 study. 7 That institutional performance has not budged may be an accurate assessment of the state of blood bank specimen mislabeling. However, other conclusions must be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Further, several studies have demonstrated that bar coding patient specimens reduces specimen misidentification. [5][6][7][8][9] Since 1989, the College of American Pathologists QProbes studies have determined a broad range of performance benchmarks in anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine. [10][11][12] Participants in these studies, representing the entire spectrum of practice settings worldwide, have been able to compare their performances with those of their peers, and to share among their peers laboratory practices associated with superior performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Blood Bank Specimen Mislabeling: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 41 333 Blood Bank Specimens in 30 Institutions

Novis¹,

Lindholm²,

Ramsey³

et al. 2017

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context.-Incorrectly labeled patient blood specimens create opportunities for laboratory testing personnel to mistake one patient's specimen for a specimen from a different patient. Transfusion of blood that is typed on specimens that are mislabeled can result in acute hemolytic transfusion reactions.Objective.-To assess the rates of blood bank ABO typing specimens that are mislabeled and/or contain blood belonging to another patient (so-called wrong blood in tube [WBIT]), and to compare these rates with those determined in a similar study performed in 2007.Design.-Participants enrolled in this College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study for the first quarter of 2015 tallied the number of mislabeled and WBIT ABO blood typing specimens. Outcome measurements were the number of mislabeled and WBIT instances per 1000 specimens. We also evaluated the effects of various practice characteristics, in particular the use of bar coding, on the outcome measurements.Results.-A total of 30 institutions submitting data on 41 333 ABO blood typing specimens recorded aggregate rates of 7.4 instances of mislabeling (306 specimens) and 0.43 instances of WBIT (10 of 23 234) per 1000 specimens submitted. Mislabeling rates were lower in institutions requiring that specimens be labeled with patients' birth dates than those that did not. The rates of specimen mislabeling and WBIT were otherwise unassociated with any of the other practice variables evaluated.Conclusions.-The rates of ABO blood typing specimen mislabeling and WBIT are not statistically different from those determined in a similar study performed in 2007 (P ¼ .94 and P ¼ .10). The use of bar coding was not associated with lower mislabeling (P ¼ .80) or WBIT rates (P ¼ .79).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blood Bank Specimen Mislabeling: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 41 333 Blood Bank Specimens in 30 Institutions

Novis¹,

Lindholm²,

Ramsey³

et al. 2017

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The internal control, RNA transcript GFP at a quantity of 2.2 ϫ 10 6 gene copies/reaction, was spiked into lysis buffer immediately prior to the processing of samples. Nucleic acid was extracted on the QIAsymphony SP (sample prep) and eluted in 110 l. The samples were bar coded for ease of extraction and assay setup and to improve accuracy (23). Eluted nucleic acid was kept at 4°C, while template addition was performed by the QIAsymphony AS.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Automated Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR and Direct Fluorescent-Antibody Detection for Routine Rabies Diagnosis in the United States

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rabies virus found worldwide and prevalent throughout the United States continues to be a public health concern. Direct-fluorescent antibody (DFA) detection remains the gold standard for rabies virus diagnostics. Assessing the utility of a high-throughput molecular platform such as the QIAsymphony SP/AS, in conjunction with quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR), to augment or potentially replace the DFA test, was the focus of this project. Here we describe a triplex qRT-PCR assay, including assembly and evaluation for sensitivity, specificity, and ability to detect variants. Additionally, we compared the qRT-PCR assay to the gold standard direct fluorescent-antibody test. More than 1,000 specimens submitted for routine rabies diagnosis were tested to directly compare the two methods. All results were in agreement between the two methods, with one additional specimen detected by qRT-PCR below the limits of the DFA sensitivity. With the proper continued validation for variant detection, molecular methods have a place in routine rabies diagnostics within the United States. Rabies virus, in the Lyssavirus genus of the Rhabdoviridae family, is found worldwide and has been described since antiquity (1). The fatality rate of clinical rabies infections remains greater than 99%. There are at least 14 recognized species of lyssaviruses circulating in the world (2), yet in the Western Hemisphere, only classical rabies virus has been identified in terrestrial mammals and bats.The cost of rabies control in the United States exceeds 300 million dollars annually (http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa /cost.html). A great portion of this expense results from the cost of administering postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) to individuals meeting risk assessment guidelines for contracting rabies virus after a contact with a rabid or suspect rabid animal. The need for accurate and timely diagnostic tools to identify positive rabies cases will continue, as this disease is prevalent in the continental United States, Canada, and Mexico (3). The direct-fluorescent antibody test (DFA) (4) is a rapid and sensitive method for diagnosing rabies infection, and as a World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)/World Health Organization (WHO)-prescribed rabies test, it is considered the worldwide gold standard for rabies diagnosis. The accuracy of the DFA relies upon the examination of fresh brain tissue, the experience of a trained microscopist with access to a quality fluorescence microscope, and the availability of high-quality antirabies diagnostic conjugates.The Rabies Laboratory of the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) performs diagnostic testing on approximately 7,000 animal specimens a year. During the summer months, the specimen submission rate can approach 150 to 200 samples per day, making a high-throughput method of detection a necessity. In most laboratories, the DFA can be completed within 3 h from receipt of specimen, and it has proven to be highly specific, sensitive, and reliable. Because a rabies laboratory can...

show abstract

“…Inconsistent barcode quality has also been cited as a factor with various point-of-care devices in wrist band error (13 ). On the other hand, a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices consensus committee recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis which concluded that barcoding is effective for reducing patient sample identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice" (14 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Invention and Validation of an Automated Camera System That Uses Optical Character Recognition to Identify Patient Name Mislabeled Samples

Hawker

McCarthy

Cleveland³

et al. 2014

Clinical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Mislabeled samples are a serious problem in most clinical laboratories. Published error rates range from 0.39/1000 to as high as 1.12%. Standardization of bar codes and label formats has not yet achieved the needed improvement. The mislabel rate in our laboratory, although low compared with published rates, prompted us to seek a solution to achieve zero errors. METHODS To reduce or eliminate our mislabeled samples, we invented an automated device using 4 cameras to photograph the outside of a sample tube. The system uses optical character recognition (OCR) to look for discrepancies between the patient name in our laboratory information system (LIS) vs the patient name on the customer label. All discrepancies detected by the system's software then require human inspection. The system was installed on our automated track and validated with production samples. RESULTS We obtained 1 009 830 images during the validation period, and every image was reviewed. OCR passed approximately 75% of the samples, and no mislabeled samples were passed. The 25% failed by the system included 121 samples actually mislabeled by patient name and 148 samples with spelling discrepancies between the patient name on the customer label and the patient name in our LIS. Only 71 of the 121 mislabeled samples detected by OCR were found through our normal quality assurance process. CONCLUSIONS We have invented an automated camera system that uses OCR technology to identify potential mislabeled samples. We have validated this system using samples transported on our automated track. Full implementation of this technology offers the possibility of zero mislabeled samples in the preanalytic stage.

show abstract

Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 53 publications

References 33 publications

Blood Bank Specimen Mislabeling: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 41 333 Blood Bank Specimens in 30 Institutions

Blood Bank Specimen Mislabeling: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 41 333 Blood Bank Specimens in 30 Institutions

Comparison of Automated Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR and Direct Fluorescent-Antibody Detection for Routine Rabies Diagnosis in the United States

Invention and Validation of an Automated Camera System That Uses Optical Character Recognition to Identify Patient Name Mislabeled Samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About