Home Laboratory error reporting rates can change significantly with year-over-year examination
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Laboratory error reporting rates can change significantly with year-over-year examination

  • Michael A. Noble EMAIL logo , Veronica Restelli , Annemarie Taylor and Douglas Cochrane
Published/Copyright: February 22, 2018
Diagnosis
From the journal Diagnosis Volume 5 Issue 1

Abstract

Background:

Incident reporting systems are useful tools to raise awareness of patient safety issues associated with healthcare error, including errors associated with the medical laboratory.

Methods:

Previously, we presented the analysis of data compiled by the British Columbia Patient Safety & Learning System over a 3-year period. A second comparable set was collected and analyzed to determine if reported error rates would tend to remain stable or change.

Results:

Compared to the original set, the second set presented changes that were both materially and statistically significant. Overall, the total number of reports increased by 297% with substantial changes between the pre-examination, examination and post-examination phases (χ2: 993.925, DF=20; p<0.00001). While the rate of change for pre-examination (clerical and collection) errors were not significantly different than the total year results, the rate of change for reporting examination errors rose by 998%. While the exact reason for dramatic change is not clear, possible explanations are provided.

Conclusions:

Longitudinal error rate tracking is a useful approach to monitor for laboratory quality improvement.

Keywords: extra analytical; laboratory error; patient safety; quality; reporting system
Corresponding author: Michael A. Noble, MD, FRCPC, University of British Columbia, Program Office for Laboratory Quality Management, Room G409 – 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada, Phone: +1-604-827-1337

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Lippi G, Chance JJ, Church S, Dazzi P, Fontana R, Giavarina D, et al. Pre-analytical quality improvement: from dream to reality. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1113–26.10.1515/CCLM.2011.600Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. O’Kane M. The reporting, classification, and grading of quality failures in the medical laboratory. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404: 28–31.10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.023Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Restelli V, Taylor A, Cochrane D, Noble MA. Medical laboratory associated errors: the 33-month experience of an on-line volunteer Canadian province wide error reporting system. Diagnosis 2017;4:79–86.10.1515/dx-2017-0013Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Systems: Requirements. Primary sample collection and handling. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2015.Search in Google Scholar

5. QMS02-A6 – Quality Management System: Development and Management of Laboratory Documents; Approved Guideline – Sixth Edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute [CLSI], 2013.Search in Google Scholar

6. ISO/TS 20658:2017. Medical laboratories – Requirements for collection, transport, receipt, and handling of samples. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2017.Search in Google Scholar

7. Astion ML, Shojania KG, Hamill TR, Kim S, Ng VL. Classifying laboratory incident reports to identify problems that jeopardize patient safety. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;120:18–26.10.1309/8U5D0MA6MFH2FG19Search in Google Scholar

8. Plebani M. Exploring the iceberg of errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:16–23.10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.022Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Plebani M. The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47:101–10.10.1258/acb.2009.009222Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. ISO 15189:2012 Medical laboratories: requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2012.Search in Google Scholar

11. Simoes MF, Dias N, Santos C, Lima N. Establishment of a quality management system based on ISO 9001 standard in a public service fungal culture collection. Microorganisms 2016;4:21.10.3390/microorganisms4020021Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

12. Gifford ML, Anderson JE. Barriers and motivating factors in reporting incidents of assault in mental health care. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2010;16:288–98.10.1177/1078390310384862Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Whitehead B, Barker D. Does the risk of reprisal prevent nurses blowing the whistle on bad practice? Nurs Times 2010; 106:12–5.Search in Google Scholar

14. Burkoski V. Identifying risk: the limitations of incident reporting. Can Nurse 2007;103:12–4.Search in Google Scholar

15. Carson-Stevens A, Hibbert P, Williams H, Evans HP, Cooper A, Rees P, et al. Characterising the nature of primary care patient safety incident reports in the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: a mixed-methods agenda-setting study for general practice. HS&DR 2016;4:27.10.3310/hsdr04270Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Dowell L. Implementing a Patient Safety Team to reduce serious incidents. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2013;2:u201086.w697.10.1136/bmjquality.u201086.w697Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

17. Pattison J, Kline T. Facilitating a just and trusting culture. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2015;28:11–26.10.1108/IJHCQA-05-2013-0055Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2017-12-12
Accepted: 2018-1-29
Published Online: 2018-2-22
Published in Print: 2018-3-28

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Diagnosis is now indexed in PubMed
  4. Review
  5. Sepsis as a model for improving diagnosis
  6. Opinion Paper
  7. Becoming a teacher of clinical reasoning
  8. Original Articles
  9. Laboratory error reporting rates can change significantly with year-over-year examination
  10. Identification of facilitators and barriers to residents’ use of a clinical reasoning tool
  11. Improved contrast microscopy: modification of bright field for urine sediment visualisation
https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2017-0043
Keywords for this article
extra analytical; laboratory error; patient safety; quality; reporting system

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Diagnosis is now indexed in PubMed
  4. Review
  5. Sepsis as a model for improving diagnosis
  6. Opinion Paper
  7. Becoming a teacher of clinical reasoning
  8. Original Articles
  9. Laboratory error reporting rates can change significantly with year-over-year examination
  10. Identification of facilitators and barriers to residents’ use of a clinical reasoning tool
  11. Improved contrast microscopy: modification of bright field for urine sediment visualisation
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 17.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/dx-2017-0043/html
Scroll to top button