Bar codes may have poorer error rates than commonly believed

Clinical Chemistry

Volumn 56, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1513-1514

  Hawker, Charles D ^a,b  

^a ARUP LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BLOOD BANK; CLINICAL LABORATORY; CODING; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NONHUMAN; EQUIPMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; NOTE;

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; HUMANS; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 77957742549     PISSN: 00099147     EISSN: 15308561     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.153288     Document Type: Editorial

References (5)

1. Adams Communications. Bar code 1. A web of information about bar code: bar code history page. http://www.adams1.com/history.html (Accessed July 2010).
2. CLSI. Laboratory automation: bar codes for specimen container identification; approved standard-second edition. CLSI document AUTO02-A2. Wayne (PA): CLSI; 2005.
3. American Association of Blood Banks. Standards for blood banks and transfusion services. 26th ed. Bethesda (MD): American Association of Blood Banks; 2009.
4. TAL Technologies. Bar code symbologies. http://www.taltech.com/resources/ intro-to-bc/bcsymbol.htm (Accessed July 2010).
5. Snyder ML, Carter A, Jenkins K, Fantz CR. Patient misidentifications caused by errors in standard bar code technology. Clin Chem 2010;56:1554-60.