Barcodes for Patient ID are Indispensable, But are They Fool Proof?
Posted by Peter Vatenos
Barcode technology has enhanced patient care by increasing the speed and accuracy of data entry in many healthcare applications. However, errors can still occur... We recently reviewed a patient misidentification study and thought we should pass it along. The study shows that linear barcodes are not failsafe and that misreads can occur due to printing defects, damaged barcodes and lack of error detection in barcode symbology.
Printing defects can affect the ability of barcode readers to successfully decode the correct barcode symbols. When print heads malfunction, for example, because of normal wear and/or clogging, the damaged print head may not properly transfer heat to the printing media resulting in a defective barcode. When reading a defective or poorly printed barcode, scanners can interpret the data incorrectly causing errors. Note: Code 128C is the current healthcare standard for barcode symbology.
Read the following study to learn what you should consider when implementing a barcode strategy. Remember, it’s important to keep up with the maintenance of your barcode equipment to guarantee high performance and decrease any possibility of error.
Download the entire study: Patient Misidentifications Study
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: Barcode technology has decreased transcription errors dramatically in many healthcare applications (Bedside Medication Verification, Specimen collection, Glucose testing, etc…). However, we have found that linear barcode identification methods are not failsafe. In this study, we sought to identify the sources of barcode decoding errors that generated incorrect patient identifiers when barcodes were scanned for point-of-care glucose testing and to develop solutions to prevent their occurrence.
Example of Linear Barcode:
METHODS: We identified misread wristband barcodes, removed them from service, and rescanned them using five different scanner models. Barcodes were reprinted in pristine condition for use as controls. We determined error rates determined for each barcode scanner pair and manually calculated internal barcode data integrity checks.
RESULTS: As many as three incorrect patient identifiers were generated from a single barcode. Minor barcode imperfections, failure to control for barcode scanner resolution requirements, and less than optimal printed barcode orientation were confirmed as sources of these errors. Of the scanner models tested, the Roche ACCUCHEK ® glucometer had the highest error rate. The internal data integrity check system was inadequate to detect these errors.
CONCLUSIONS: Barcode-related patient misidentifications can occur. In the worst case, misidentified patient results could have been transmitted to the incorrect patient medical record. This report has profound implications not only for point-of-care testing but also for barcoded medication administration, transfusion recipient certification systems, and other areas where patient misidentifications can be life-threatening. Careful control of barcode scanning and printing equipment specifications will minimize this threat to patient safety. Ultimately, healthcare device manufacturers should adopt more robust and higher fidelity alternatives to linear barcode symbologies.
© 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry
Download the entire study: Patient Misidentifications Study
Consult an expert for assistance with your barcode strategy: info@rmsomega.com