TY - JOUR
T1 - How many mislabelled samples go unidentified? Results of a pilot study to determine the occult mislabelled sample rate
AU - Raymond, Caitlin
AU - Dell'Osso, Liesel
AU - Guerra, David
AU - Hernandez, Julia
AU - Rendon, Leonel
AU - Fuller, Donna
AU - Villasante-Tezanos, Alejandro
AU - Garcia, Juandavid
AU - McCaffrey, Peter
AU - Zahner, Christopher
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Specimens with incorrect patient information are both a critical safety error and difficult to identify. Estimates of sample mislabelling rely on subjective identification of mislabelling, with the possibility that not all mislabelled samples are being caught. Methods: We determined the blood type of two or more complete blood count specimens with the same patient label and assessed for discrepancies. We additionally determined the rate of identified sample mislabelling for the study period. Results: We found a rate of 3.17 per 1000 discrepancies over the study period. These discrepancies most likely represent occult, or unidentified, mislabelled samples. In contrast, the rate of identified sample mislabelling was 1.15 per 1000. Conclusions: This study suggests that specimens identified as, or known to be, mislabelled represent only a fraction of those mislabelled. These findings are currently being confirmed in our laboratory and are likely generalisable to other institutions.
AB - Background: Specimens with incorrect patient information are both a critical safety error and difficult to identify. Estimates of sample mislabelling rely on subjective identification of mislabelling, with the possibility that not all mislabelled samples are being caught. Methods: We determined the blood type of two or more complete blood count specimens with the same patient label and assessed for discrepancies. We additionally determined the rate of identified sample mislabelling for the study period. Results: We found a rate of 3.17 per 1000 discrepancies over the study period. These discrepancies most likely represent occult, or unidentified, mislabelled samples. In contrast, the rate of identified sample mislabelling was 1.15 per 1000. Conclusions: This study suggests that specimens identified as, or known to be, mislabelled represent only a fraction of those mislabelled. These findings are currently being confirmed in our laboratory and are likely generalisable to other institutions.
KW - quality assurance, health care
KW - quality control
KW - safety
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85193999557&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85193999557&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/jcp-2024-209544
DO - 10.1136/jcp-2024-209544
M3 - Article
C2 - 38769001
AN - SCOPUS:85193999557
SN - 0021-9746
JO - Journal of Clinical Pathology
JF - Journal of Clinical Pathology
M1 - jcp-2024-209544
ER -