Retrospective cohort study of wrong-patient imaging order errors: how many reach the patient?

Studying near-miss errors is essential to preventing errors from reaching patients. When an error is committed, it may be intercepted (near-miss) or it will reach the patient; estimates of the proportion that reach the patient vary widely. To better understand this relationship, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using two objective measures to identify wrong-patient imaging order errors involving radiation, estimating the proportion of errors that are intercepted and those that reach the patient. This study was conducted at a large integrated healthcare system using data from 1 January to 31 December 2019. The study used two outcome measures of wrong-patient orders: (1) wrong-patient orders that led to misadministration of radiation reported to the New York Patient Occurrence Reporting and Tracking System (NYPORTS) (misadministration events); and (2) wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) measure, a measure identifying orders placed for a patient, retracted and rapidly reordered by the same clinician on a different patient (near-miss events). All imaging orders that involved radiation were extracted retrospectively from the healthcare system data warehouse. Among 293 039 total eligible orders, 151 were wrong-patient orders (3 misadministration events, 148 near-miss events), for an overall rate of 51.5 per 100 000 imaging orders involving radiation placed on the wrong patient. Of all wrong-patient imaging order errors, 2% reached the patient, translating to 50 near-miss events for every 1 error that reached the patient. This proportion provides a more accurate and reliable estimate and reinforces the utility of systematic measure of near-miss errors as an outcome for preventative interventions.

Effect of restricting electronic health records on clinician efficiency: substudy of a randomized clinical trial.

A prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no significant difference in wrong-patient errors between clinicians assigned to a restricted electronic health record (EHR) configuration (limiting to 1 record open at a time) versus an unrestricted EHR configuration (allowing up to 4 records open concurrently). However, it is unknown whether an unrestricted EHR configuration is more efficient. This substudy of the RCT compared clinician efficiency between EHR configurations using objective measures. All clinicians who logged onto the EHR during the substudy period were included. The primary outcome measure of efficiency was total active minutes per day. Counts were extracted from audit log data, and mixed-effects negative binomial regression was performed to determine differences between randomized groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Among a total of 2556 clinicians, there was no significant difference between unrestricted and restricted groups in total active minutes per day (115.1 vs 113.3 min, respectively; IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06), overall or by clinician type and practice area.

Observation and Patients' Perceptions of Incorporating Their Photograph Into the Electronic Health Record.

OBJECTIVES: Wrong-patient errors are common and have the potential to cause serious harm. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Patient Identification SAFER Guide recommends displaying patient photographs in electronic health record (EHR) systems to facilitate patient identification and reduce wrong-patient errors. A potential barrier to implementation is patient refusal; however, patients' perceptions about having their photograph captured during registration and integrated into the EHR are unknown. METHODS: The study was conducted in an emergency department (ED) and primary care outpatient clinic within a large integrated health system in New York City. The study consisted of 2 components: (1) direct observation of the registration process to quantify the frequency of patient refusals and (2) semistructured interviews to elicit patients' feedback on perceived benefits and barriers to integrating their photograph into the EHR. RESULTS: Of 172 registrations where patients were asked to take a photograph for patient identification, 0 refusals were observed (ED, 0 of 87; primary care outpatient clinic, 0 of 85). A convenience sample of 30 patients were interviewed (female, 70%; age ≥55 years, 43%; Hispanic/Latino, 67%; Black, 23%). Perceived benefits of integrating patient photographs into the EHR included improved security (40%), improved patient identification (23%), and ease of registration (17%). A small proportion of patients raised privacy concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Patient refusal was not found to be a barrier to implementation of patient photographs in the EHR. Efforts to identify and address other potential barriers would help ensure that the highest proportion of patients has photographs in their medical record.

"What's in a name?" Identification of newborn infants at birth using their given names.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of pregnant women who selected names for their babies to be born and were willing to disclose them for use in hospital systems, thereby potentially reducing infant identification errors. STUDY DESIGN: Survey of pregnant women admitted to postpartum or antepartum units at a large academic hospital. Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine the proportion who had chosen names prior to delivery. Chi-square tests and calculated odds ratios assessed the association with demographic and pregnancy factors. RESULTS: Of postpartum participants, 79.0% had names for their newborns at birth. This proportion was significantly lower in self-identified non-Hispanic, white, and married women. Of antepartum participants, 65.7% had selected a name at the time of survey. CONCLUSION: Most participants had names chosen for use at birth. This finding was consistent across demographic and pregnancy characteristics, supporting the feasibility of using given names for newborns in hospital systems at birth.

Incident Reports of Naming Errors among Two Sets of Infant Twins.

Newborns are at high risk for identification errors due to their inability to speak and indistinguishable features. To reduce this risk, The Joint Commission requires hospitals to use a distinct identification method for newborns. Most hospitals create medical records for newborns at birth using temporary naming conventions, resulting in patients with similar identifiers. Typically, multiple-birth infants are distinguished from their siblings by a single character (1, 2, or A, B), placing them at higher risk for identification errors, which can delay care and compromise patient safety. METHODS: We present 2 unrelated cases involving naming errors in sets of infant twins receiving care in a healthcare system using Joint Commission compliant distinct temporary naming convention. RESULTS: In the 2 cases, system failures contributed to naming errors in 2 sets of infant twins, which resulted in delayed care. In the first case, twins were inadvertently assigned the same temporary name. In the second case, an infant's blood specimen label did not include a single character, which distinguishes a multiple-birth infant from their sibling. Further safeguards are needed to reduce this risk. These cases illustrated the potential for misidentification related to newborn naming conventions during the registration process, especially between siblings of multiple-birth infants. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine strategies to prevent newborn identification errors. Potential strategies to reduce this risk and protect newborns include improving the design of newborn identifiers, systems-level interventions such as verification alerts, and improved registration processes.