This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.—
The report on the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Conference (1983;249:570) omitted an incident that may interest physicians generally. In this conference, my paper entitled "Errors in Laboratory Data Processing" presented data from three hospitals showing that in more than 20% of laboratory requests, essential patient identification was either missing or incorrect. A questioner challenged my statistics and asserted that in his experience as a Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation inspector, no more than 3% were defective as to patient identification.The statistics I have collected are voluminous, detailed, and specific as to individual requests. The proportion of defective requests has not changed in the last ten years. If the hospitals I have studied are bad examples, it is still too much to accept even 3% of requests as defective, especially when a cost-effective system is available to verify and complete every request without returning
Raymond S. Patient Identification and Laboratory Requests. JAMA. 1983;250(2):166–167. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03340020018019
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: