You are on page 1of 3

FORMAT REVIEW ARTICLE

TITLE ARTICLE: Evaluation of Near-Miss Wrong-Patient Events in Radiology Reports


Nama Mahasiswa: Cornel Anggara
URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26204284 NIM : 2017 1030009
SECTION PURPOSE

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of reported mis
wrong patient event in radiology. An institutional imaging report database
was searched for reports between January 1, 2009, and May 30, 2013.
Overall, 67 eligible report were identified among 1,717,713 examinations
performed during the study period. The number of near-miss mislabelled
patient events for imaging test and the delay in awereness of these events
were substantial, especially for radiography.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of reported
nearmiss wrong-patient events in radiology at two large academic hospitals
and its relation to imaging modality, clinical setting, and time of
occurrence.

METHODS These imaging reports were categorized into either mislabeled or


misidentified patient or wrong dictation or report events. The mislabeling-
misidentification events involved patients whose images were incorrectly
placed in another patients folder. In wrong dictation or report events, a
patients images were placed in the correct imaging folder, but another
patients images were used in error for dictation of the report. The time to
detect each of these events was also evaluated

RESULTS Overall, 67 eligible reports were identified among 1,717,713 examinations


performed during the study period. The estimated event rate was 4 per
100,000 examinations (mislabeling-misidentification, 52%; wrong
dictation, 48%). The monthly mean of mislabeling-misidentification
events was 0.7 (SD, 0.9) and of wrong dictation events was 0.6 (SD, 0.7).
The median time for mislabeling-misidentification reports to be identified
was 22 hours and for wrong dictation reports was 0 hours. Portable chest
radiography was the modality involved in 69% (24/35) of reported
mislabeling-misidentification and 44% (14/32) of wrong dictation events
(p = 0.08); 43% (15/35) of mislabeling-misidentification and 28% (9/32)
of wrong dictation events occurred during off hours; 63% (22/35) of
mislabeling-misidentification and 56% (18/32) of wrong dictation events
occurred in the inpatient setting.

DISCUSSION The results of our study showed that the average monthly incidence of
near-miss wrongpatient events is 0.7 (SD, 0.9) for
mislabelingmisidentification events and 0.6 (SD, 0.7) for wrong dictation
events. Even after adjustment for the volumes of each modality performed,
portable chest radiography had the most mislabeling-misidentification
events. The time from occurrence to identification of wrong dictation
events was significantly less than that for mislabeling-misidentification
events (median time, 0 vs 22 hours; p = 0.02)

REFERENCES 1. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS; Institute of Medicine (U.S.)


Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To err is human:
building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press, 1999
2. James JT. New, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated
with hospital care. J Patient Saf 2013; 9:122128
3. The Joint Commission website. National patient safety goals.
www.jointcommission.org/standards_ information/npsgs.aspx. Accessed
April 20, 2015
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality Archive website. Safe practices for better healthcare:
summary.archive.ahrq.gov/professionals/qualitypatient-safety/patient-
safety-resources/resources/ nqfpract/nqfpract.html. Last reviewed August
2003. Accessed April 20, 2015
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality Archive website. 30 safe practices for better health
care: fact sheet. archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/ errors-
safety/30safe/30-safe-practices.html. Last reviewed March 2005.
Accessed April 20, 2015
6. Thornton RH, Miransky J, Killen AR, Solomon SB, Brody LA. Analysis
and prioritization of near-miss adverse events in a radiology department.
AJR 2011; 196:11201124
7. Schultz SR, Watson RE Jr, Prescott SL, et al. Patient safety event
reporting in a large radiology department. AJR 2011; 197:684688
8. Heinrich HW. Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1931
9. Chassin MR. Improving the quality of health care: whats taking so
long? Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32:17611765
10. Bucknall TK. Medical error and decision making: learning from the
past and present in intensive care. Aust Crit Care 2010; 23:150156
11. Gale ME, Gale DR. DICOM modality worklist: an essential component
in a PACS environment. J Digit Imaging 2000; 13:101108 12. [No
authors listed]. Applying the universal protocol to improve patient safety
in radiology. Pa Patient Saf Advis 2011; 8:6369
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality website. What are patient safety primers?
psnet.ahrq.gov/ primer.aspx?primerID=3. Accessed May 25, 2014
14. Seiden SC, Barach P. Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrongprocedure, and
wrong-patient adverse events: are they preventable? Arch Surg 2006;
141:931939
15. Kao EF, Lin WC, Jaw TS, Liu GC, Wu JS, Lee CN. Automated patient
identity recognition by analysis of chest radiograph features. Acad Radiol
2013; 20:10241031
16. Morishita J, Katsuragawa S, Kondo K, Doi K. An automated patient
recognition method based on an image-matching technique using previous
chest radiographs in the picture archiving and communication system
environment. Med Phys 2001; 28:10931097
17. Tridandapani S, Ramamurthy S, Galgano SJ, Provenzale JM.
Increasing rate of detection of wrong-patient radiographs: use of
photographs obtained at time of radiography. AJR 2013; 200:[web]W345
W352
18. Williams PM. Techniques for root cause analysis. Proc (Bayl Univ
Med Ctr) 2001; 14:154157