Download the following white paper and get a third parties unbiased finding:
“Patient Misidentifications Caused By Errors in Standard Barcode Technology” by The American Association for Clinical Chemistry
Download the entire white paper and find out:
- What contributes to misidentification?
- What make a barcode unreadable?
- 1D or 2D barcodes, and why?
- What type of scanners perform best?
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 study or consult with an expert for assistance with your barcode system,
info@rmsomega.com.