In Reply In my Editorial1 of the article by Adelman et al,2 there is no statement that the distinct naming convention failed to reduce wrong patient error rates in multiple-birth newborns. There are statements in the Editorial1 that report the findings of the study support the authors’ hypothesis2 that following the adoption of the Joint Commission standard, wrong patient errors among children of multiple births were approximately twice that of singleton errors, and the excess risk increased with the number of siblings in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Freed GL. Inaccuracies Regarding the Joint Commission Newborn Identification Standard—Reply. JAMA Pediatr. Published online March 23, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0068
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: