Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Dec;56(6):630-6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.028. Epub 2010 Sep 6.
We measure the rate of emergency department (ED) specimen processing error reduction after implementation of an electronic physician order entry system paired with a bar-coded specimen labeling process.
A cohort pre- and postintervention study was conducted in the ED during a 61-month period ending September 2008 in a large urban teaching hospital. Historically, laboratory order and requisition processing was done by hand. Interventions included implementing an ED-specific electronic documentation and information system, which included physician order entry with patient verification through bar-coded wristbands and bar-coded specimen labels. The main outcome measure was processing error rate, defined as unlabeled/mislabeled/wrong patient specimen or requisition. Pre- and postimplementation data were tabulated monthly and compared in aggregate by χ(2) test. The contribution of ED error to total institution specimen error was also calculated.
Of the 724,465 specimens collected preintervention, 3,007 (0.42%) were recorded as errors versus 379 errors (0.11%) of 334,039 specimens collected postintervention, which represents a 74% relative and 0.31% absolute decrease (95% confidence interval 0.28% to 0.32%). The proportion of institutional errors contributed by the ED was reduced from 20.4% to 11.4%, a 44% relative and 9.0% absolute reduction (95% confidence interval 7.7% to 10.3%). Subanalysis revealed that the majority of continued errors occur when the physician order entry/bar-code system could not be used (eg, blood bank or surgical pathology specimens).
Combining an electronic physician order entry with bar-coded patient verification and electronic documentation and information system-generated specimen labels can significantly reduce ED specimen-related errors, with sizable influence on institutional specimen-related errors. Continued use of hand labeling and processing for special specimens appears inadvisable, though the cost-effectiveness of this intervention has not been established.
通过实施电子医嘱录入系统与条码标本标签流程相结合,我们衡量急诊(ED)标本处理错误率的降低率。
在 2008 年 9 月结束的 61 个月期间,我们在一家大型城市教学医院的 ED 中进行了一项队列前后干预研究。历史上,实验室医嘱和申请的处理是手工完成的。干预措施包括实施特定于 ED 的电子文档和信息系统,该系统包括带有通过条码腕带和条码标本标签进行患者验证的医师医嘱录入。主要观察指标是处理错误率,定义为无标签/标签错误/错误患者标本或申请。将前后实施的数据按月进行汇总,并通过 χ(2)检验进行比较。还计算了 ED 错误对总机构标本错误的贡献。
在干预前采集的 724465 份标本中,有 3007 份(0.42%)记录为错误,而在干预后采集的 334039 份标本中,有 379 份(0.11%)错误,这代表了 74%的相对和 0.31%的绝对减少(95%置信区间为 0.28%至 0.32%)。ED 对机构错误的贡献比例从 20.4%降至 11.4%,相对减少 44%,绝对减少 9.0%(95%置信区间为 7.7%至 10.3%)。亚分析显示,当医师医嘱录入/条码系统无法使用时(例如血库或外科病理学标本),大多数持续的错误会发生。
将电子医师医嘱录入与条码患者验证以及电子文档和信息系统生成的标本标签相结合,可以显著降低 ED 标本相关错误,对机构标本相关错误有很大影响。对于特殊标本,继续使用手工标记和处理似乎不可取,尽管尚未确定这种干预的成本效益。