[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 98
Citations 0
Comment & Response
March 23, 2020

Inaccuracies Regarding the Joint Commission Newborn Identification Standard—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
  • 2Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
JAMA Pediatr. Published online March 23, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0068

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.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

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.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    ×