Jump to content
PathLabTalk

Accessioning Error Rate


Recommended Posts

All of our TM samples are manually entered into our LIS with ~9,000 samples accessioned monthly. We do capture pre-analytical errors pertaining to the data entry (eg. mis-spelled names, wrong DOB, wrong test selected, etc.). We have been keeping track of our pre-analytical data entry errors in conjunction with the number of samples registered but I am unable to find any literature to compare it to....? Is anyone aware of any published data regarding "acceptable" lab data entry error rates?

Thanks and Happy Easter!

Link to post
Share on other sites


You should be able to find a number of journal articles online, for instance, this one: https://academic.oup.com/ajcp/article/138/suppl_1/A195/1772848 , just by doing a google search.

Ideally of course, your quality target should be 0 errors.  But practically,I think what you will want to do is establish where you are now and show how, month after month, you are improving on that.  Like all projects of this sort,  you will end up having to drill down on your data to identify areas that you can improve.

Scott

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks - I have looked on-line extensively and have not found any literature with an "established" error rate which we could compare to. We are monitoring our rates monthly but it would be nice to know if anyone else has done this and if there is a ball park error rate we could compare ourselves to rather than a full blown six sigma study....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I have the same problem and I can't find any published date either.  Our Transfusion Service rejects between 3-4% of our total blood bank specimens collected.   We have been working with Nursing to help correct the problem with Nursing Collected specimens with no luck.  :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the acceptable error rate, regardless of where you work or what published literature you can or can not find, has to be zero.  Your quality management project just needs to show how you improve on whatever your baseline rate is. 

The article I cited above does indeed involve entry error rates.

( But I would be surprised if you can get someone at your facility to agree that your error rate is OK because you found a paper that gives an "acceptable'  rate that is worse than yours! )

Scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate in a perfect world the error rate would be zero; however, this is not feasible as humans are entering data and humans will make mistakes. I am not looking for someone to tell me my error rate is OK because it compares to someone else - I am looking for some benchmarks. For example, if I am at an error rate of 6% and folks in similar sized facilities accessioning similar numbers are around 3% then I know I need to seriously look into our processes and can work towards that goal. If I happen to be around the same error rate as other comparable sites then I will not expect to see as large a decrease in the error rate but will continue to ensure it trends downward.

thanks for the discussion...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Advertisement

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.