Rate of occult specimen provenance complications in routine clinical practice

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 139, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 93-100

  Pfeifer, John D ^a   Liu, Jingxia ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Microsatellite analysis; Patient safety; Prostate biopsy; Short tandem repeat analysis; Specimen identification errors; Specimen provenance; Switching errors

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICAL ERROR; OCCULT BLOOD TEST; OCCULT SPECIMEN PROVENANCE COMPLICATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; DNA; HUMANS; MALE; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 84871734405     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: 19437722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP50WEZHWIFCIV     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Extraneous tissue in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 275 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:1009-1014. (Pubitemid 26382874)
2. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 1,004,115 cases from 417 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:227-233. (Pubitemid 26086753)
3. Layfield LJ, Anderson GM. Specimen labeling errors in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134:466-470.
4. Valenstein PN, Raab SS, Walsh MK. Identification errors involving clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1106-1113. (Pubitemid 44168776)
5. Dunn EJ, Moga PJ. Patient misidentification in laboratory medicine: a qualitative analysis of 227 root cause analysis reports in the Veterans Health Administration. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:244-255.
6. Nakhleh RE. Patient safety and error reduction in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:181-185. (Pubitemid 351213782)
7. Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, et al. Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of identification errors in laboratory diagnostics. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;47:143-153.
8. Wagar EA, Yuan S. The laboratory and patient safety. Clin Lab Med. 2007;27:909-930. (Pubitemid 47576521)
9. Pfeifer JD, Payton J, Zehnbauer B. The changing spectrum of DNA-based specimen provenance testing in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135:132-138.
10. Hayden RT, Patterson DJ, Jay DW, et al. Computer-assisted bar-coding system significantly reduces clinical laboratory specimen identification errors in a pediatric oncology hospital. J Pediatr. 2008;152:219-224.
11. Francis DL, Prabhakar S, Sanderson SO. A quality initiative to decrease pathology specimen-labeling errors using radiofrequency identification in a high-volume endoscopy center. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:972-975.
12. Raff LJ, Engel G, Beck KR, et al. The effectiveness of inking needle core prostate biopsies for preventing patient specimen identification errors: a technique to address Joint Commission patient safety goals in specialty laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:295-297.
13. Makary MA, Epstein J, Pronovost PJ, et al. Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care. Surgery. 2007;141:450-455. (Pubitemid 46441304)
14. Hunt JL. Identifying cross contaminants and specimen mix-ups in surgical pathology. Adv Anat Pathol. 2008;15:211-217.
15. Wakefield DS, Ward MM, Wakefield BJ. A 10-rights framework for patient care quality and safety. Am J Med Qual. 2007;22:103-111.
16. Rudin N, Inman K. An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2002.
17. Bell CG, Wood DR, Cheong SJH, et al. Molecular confirmation of pathological specimen integrity in Australasia. Pathology (Phila). 2009;41:280-283.
18. Suba EJ, Pfeifer JD, Raab SS. Patient identification error among prostate needle core biopsy specimens - are we ready for a DNA time-out? J Urol. 2007;178:1245-1248. (Pubitemid 47368411)
19. Cao DM, Hafez M, Berg K, et al. Little or no residual prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy: vanishing cancer or switched specimen? a microsatellite analysis of specimen identity. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:467-473. (Pubitemid 40411177)
20. Marberger M, McConnell JD, Fowler I, et al. Biopsy misidentification identified by DNA profiling in a large multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1744-1749.
21. Parsons HM. What happened at Hawthorne? new evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies. Science. 1974;183:922-932.
22. Leonard KL, Masatu MC. Outpatient process quality evaluation and the Hawthorne effect. Soc Sci Med. 2006;69:2330-2340. (Pubitemid 44399810)
23. De Amici D, Klersy C, Ramajoli F, et al. Impact of the Hawthorne effect in a longitudinal clinical study: the case of anesthesia. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:103-114. (Pubitemid 30129070)
24. Pfeifer JD, Singleton MN, Gregory MH, et al. Development of a decision-analytic model for the application of STR-based provenance testing of transrectal prostate biopsy specimens. Value Health. 2012;15:860-867.