scholarly journals Blood sampling guidelines with focus on patient safety and identification – a review

Diagnosis ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cornes ◽  
Mercedes Ibarz ◽  
Helene Ivanov ◽  
Kjell Grankvist
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Venous Blood ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Analytical Phase ◽  
Total Testing Process ◽  
Improve Patient

AbstractIt has been well documented over recent years that the pre-analytical phase is a leading contributor to errors in the total testing process (TTP). There has however been great progress made in recent years due to the exponential growth of working groups specialising in the field. Patient safety is clearly at the forefront of any healthcare system and any reduction in errors at any stage will improve patient safety. Venous blood collection is a key step in the TTP, and here we review the key errors that occur in venous phlebotomy process and summarise the evidence around their significance to patient safety. Recent studies have identified that patient identification and tube labelling are the steps that carry the highest risk with regard to patient safety. Other studies have shown that in 16.1% of cases, patient identification is incorrectly performed and that 56% of patient identification errors are due to poor labelling practice. We recommend that patient identification must be done using open questions and ideally three separate pieces of information. Labelling of the tube or linking the identity of the patient to the tube label electronically must be done in the presence of the patient whether it is before or after sampling. Combined this will minimise any chance of patient misidentification.

scholarly journals Quality Indicators of the Pre-Analytical Phase

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nada Majkić-Singh ◽  
Zorica Šumarac
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Laboratory Errors ◽  
Analytical Phase ◽  
Total Testing Process

Quality Indicators of the Pre-Analytical PhaseQuality indicatorsare tools that allow the quantification of quality in each of the segments of health care in comparison with selected criteria. They can be defined as an objective measure used to assess the critical health care segments such as, for instance, patient safety, effectiveness, impartiality, timeliness, efficiency, etc. In laboratory medicine it is possible to develop quality indicators or the measure of feasibility for any stage of the total testing process. The total process or cycle of investigation has traditionally been separated into three phases, the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phase. Some authors also include a »pre-pre« and a »post-post« analytical phase, in a manner that allows to separate them from the activities of sample collection and transportation (pre-analytical phase) and reporting (post-analytical phase). In the year 2008 the IFCC formed within its Education and Management Division (EMD) a task force calledLaboratory Errors and Patient Safety (WG-LEPS)with the aim of promoting the investigation of errors in laboratory data, collecting data and developing a strategy to improve patient safety. This task force came up with the Model of Quality Indicators (MQI) for the total testing process (TTP) including the pre-, intra- and post-analytical phases of work. The pre-analytical phase includes a set of procedures that are difficult to define because they take place at different locations and at different times. Errors that occur at this stage often become obvious later in the analytical and post-analytical phases. For these reasons the identification of quality indicators is necessary in order to avoid potential errors in all the steps of the pre-analytical phase.

Errors in Laboratory Medicine: Practical Lessons to Improve Patient Safety

2005 ◽  
Vol 129 (10) ◽  
pp. 1252-1261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Howanitz
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Clinical Pathology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Laboratory Medicine ◽  
Error Reduction ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Improve Patient

Abstract Context.—Patient safety is influenced by the frequency and seriousness of errors that occur in the health care system. Error rates in laboratory practices are collected routinely for a variety of performance measures in all clinical pathology laboratories in the United States, but a list of critical performance measures has not yet been recommended. The most extensive databases describing error rates in pathology were developed and are maintained by the College of American Pathologists (CAP). These databases include the CAP's Q-Probes and Q-Tracks programs, which provide information on error rates from more than 130 interlaboratory studies. Objectives.—To define critical performance measures in laboratory medicine, describe error rates of these measures, and provide suggestions to decrease these errors, thereby ultimately improving patient safety. Setting.—A review of experiences from Q-Probes and Q-Tracks studies supplemented with other studies cited in the literature. Design.—Q-Probes studies are carried out as time-limited studies lasting 1 to 4 months and have been conducted since 1989. In contrast, Q-Tracks investigations are ongoing studies performed on a yearly basis and have been conducted only since 1998. Participants from institutions throughout the world simultaneously conducted these studies according to specified scientific designs. The CAP has collected and summarized data for participants about these performance measures, including the significance of errors, the magnitude of error rates, tactics for error reduction, and willingness to implement each of these performance measures. Main Outcome Measures.—A list of recommended performance measures, the frequency of errors when these performance measures were studied, and suggestions to improve patient safety by reducing these errors. Results.—Error rates for preanalytic and postanalytic performance measures were higher than for analytic measures. Eight performance measures were identified, including customer satisfaction, test turnaround times, patient identification, specimen acceptability, proficiency testing, critical value reporting, blood product wastage, and blood culture contamination. Error rate benchmarks for these performance measures were cited and recommendations for improving patient safety presented. Conclusions.—Not only has each of the 8 performance measures proven practical, useful, and important for patient care, taken together, they also fulfill regulatory requirements. All laboratories should consider implementing these performance measures and standardizing their own scientific designs, data analysis, and error reduction strategies according to findings from these published studies.

scholarly journals Medical Errors: Pre-Analytical Issue in Patient Safety

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 310-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Plebani ◽  
Elisa Piva
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Important Lesson ◽  
Laboratory Errors ◽  
Analytical Issue ◽  
Total Testing Process

Medical Errors: Pre-Analytical Issue in Patient SafetyThe last few decades have seen a significant decrease in the rates of analytical errors in clinical laboratories, while a growing body of evidence demonstrates that the pre- and post-analytical steps of the total testing process (TTP) are more error-prone than the analytical phase. In particular, most errors are identified in pre-pre-analytic steps outside the walls of the laboratory, and beyond its control. However, in a patient-centred approach to the delivery of health care services, there is the need to investigate, in the total testing process, any possible defect that may have a negative impact on the patient, irrespective of which step is involved and whether the error depends on a laboratory professional (e.g. calibration or testing error) or a non-laboratory operator (e.g. inappropriate test request, error in patient identification and/or blood collection). In the pre-analytic phase, the frequency of patient/specimens misidentification and the presence of possible causes of specimen rejection (haemolysis, clotting, insufficient volume, etc.) represent a valuable risk for patient safety. Preventing errors in the pre-analytical steps requires both technological developments (wristband, barcodes, pre-analytical workstations) and closer relationships with the clinical world to achieve an effective team-working cooperation. The most important lesson we have learned, therefore, is that laboratory errors and injuries to patients can be prevented by redesigning systems that render it difficult for all caregivers and in all steps of the total testing process to make mistakes.

Laboratory-associated and diagnostic errors: a neglected link

Diagnosis ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Plebani
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Test Request

AbstractClinical laboratories play a vital role in patient care, but many diagnostic errors are associated with laboratory testing. The past decades have seen sustained improvements in analytical performances but the error rates, particularly in pre- and post-analytical phases is still high. Although the seminal concept of the brain-to-brain laboratory loop has been described more than four decades ago, the awareness about the importance of extra-analytical aspects in laboratory quality is a recent achievement. According to this concept, all phases and activities of the testing cycle should be assessed, monitored and improved in order to decrease the total error rates and thereby improve patient safety. In the interests of patients, any direct or indirect negative consequence related to a laboratory test must be considered, irrespective of which step is involved and whether the error depends on a laboratory professional (e.g., calibration or testing error) or a non-laboratory operator (e.g., inappropriate test request, error in patient identification and/or blood collection). Data collected in various clinical settings demonstrate that many diagnostic errors are associated with laboratory testing. In particular, errors are due to inappropriate test request and/or result interpretation and utilization. Collaborations between laboratory professionals and other care providers, namely clinicians and nurses, are needed to achieve the goal of improved patient safety.

Feasibility Evaluation of Smart Stretcher to Improve Patient Safety during Transfers

2011 ◽  
Vol 50 (03) ◽  
pp. 253-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Kurihara ◽  
K. Watanabe ◽  
L. Ohno-Machado ◽  
H. Tanaka ◽  
K. Ohashi
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Wireless Network ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Hospital Environment ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Identification System ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Technical Feasibility ◽  
Improve Patient

SummaryObjectives: The integration of noninvasive vital sign sensors and wireless sensor networks into intelligent alarm systems has the potential to improve patient safety. We developed a wireless network-based system (“Smart Stretcher”), which was designed to constantly monitor patient vital signs and detect apnea during transfers within a hospital. The system alerts medical staff in case of an emergency through a wireless network.Methods: A small-scale technical feasibility study was conducted to assess the performance of the system in a simulated hospital environment. Smart Stretcher consists of three components: a small air-mat type pressure sensor measuring respiratory rate and detecting apnea, a patient identification system using RFID technology, and an indoor positioning system using a ZigBee wireless network. In the feasibility experiment, two nurses transferred four subjects who stopped breathing for 10 seconds, after which we calculated the accuracy of apnea detections, repeating this at varying speeds and subject positions. We alsoperformed asubjective evaluation of perceptions and expectations of Smart Stretcher by nurses.Results: The system could detect apnea in all subjects at a rate of over 90%, patient IDs and locations were correctly detected in real time, and the system could alert medical staff. In addition, the results of nurse’s evaluations were mostly positive.Conclusions: The technical feasibility experiment and evaluation of Smart Stretcher suggest that the system could play a key role in monitoring patients during hospital transfers.

scholarly journals Laboratory testing of extravascular body fluids

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Milevoj Kopcinovic ◽  
Jelena Culej ◽  
Anja Jokic ◽  
Marija Bozovic ◽  
Irena Kocijan
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Body Fluids ◽  
Healthcare Outcomes ◽  
Serous Fluid ◽  
Fluid Analysis ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
Total Testing Process ◽  
Improve Patient

Extravascular body fluids (EBF) analysis can provide useful information in the differential diagnosis of conditions that caused their accumulation. Their unique nature and particular requirements accompanying EBF analysis need to be recognized in order to minimize possible negative implications on patient safety. This recommendation was prepared by the members of the Working group for extravascular body fluid samples (WG EBFS). It is designed to address the total testing process and clinical significance of tests used in EBF analysis. The recommendation begins with a chapter addressing validation of methods used in EBF analysis, and continues with specific recommendations for serous fluids analysis. It is organized in sections referring to the preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical phase with specific recommendations presented in boxes. Its main goal is to assist in the attainment of national harmonization of serous fluid analysis and ultimately improve patient safety and healthcare outcomes. This recommendation is intended to all laboratory professionals performing EBF analysis and healthcare professionals involved in EBF collection and processing. Cytological and microbiological evaluations of EBF are beyond the scope of this document.

scholarly journals Writing’s on the wall: improving the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e001086
Author(s):  
Claire Cushley ◽  
Tom Knight ◽  
Helen Murray ◽  
Lawrence Kidd
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Surgical Safety Checklist ◽  
Surgical Safety ◽  
Time Out ◽  
Mandatory Requirement ◽  
Who Checklist ◽  
Improve Patient ◽  
Theatre Team

Background and problemThe WHO Surgical Safety Checklist has been shown to improve patient safety as well as improving teamwork and communication in theatres. In 2009, it was made a mandatory requirement for all NHS hospitals in England and Wales. The WHO checklist is intended to be adapted to suit local settings and was modified for use in Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In 2018, it was decided to review the use of the adapted WHO checklist and determine whether improvements in compliance and engagement could be achieved.AimThe aim was to achieve 90% compliance and engagement with the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist by April 2019.MethodsIn April 2018, a prospective observational audit and online survey took place. The results showed compliance for the ‘Sign In’ section of the checklist was 55% and for the ‘Time Out’ section was 91%. Engagement by the entire theatre team was measured at 58%. It was proposed to move from a paper checklist to a wall-mounted checklist, to review and refine the items in the checklist and to change the timing of ‘Time Out’ to ensure it was done immediately prior to knife-to-skin.ResultsFollowing its introduction in September 2018, the new wall-mounted checklist was reaudited. Compliance improved to 91% for ‘Sign In’ and to 94% for ‘Time Out’. Engagement by the entire theatre team was achieved 100% of the time. Feedback was collected, adjustments made and the new checklist was rolled out in stages across all theatres. A reaudit in December 2018 showed compliance improved further, to 99% with ‘Sign In’ and to 100% with ‘Time Out’. Engagement was maintained at 100%.ConclusionsThe aim of the project was met and exceeded. Since April 2019, the new checklist is being used across all theatres in the Trust.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document