Strict Adherence to a Blood Bank Specimen Labelling Policy by All Clinical Laboratories Significantly Reduces the Incidence of “Wrong Blood in Tube” was published in the year 2009. The article focuses on a research exploring the occurrences of wrong blood in tube (WBIT) and mislabeled samples (O’neill et al. 1). In the article, the authors assert that phlebotomy faults resulting in mismatched transfusions are responsible for an increase in the transfusion-related illnesses and deaths. The authors note that their medical organization’s specimen-labeling strategy necessitates the indication of the collection day, two exclusive client identifiers, and the capability to ascertain the phlebotomist. The article indicates that the strategy was originally implemented solely for the blood bank. However, after an informative campaign on appropriate sample classification every medical test center began to observe the sample-labeling strategy (O’neill et al. 3). The researchers point out that after the implementation of the strategy the occurrence of WBIT and mislabeled samples have lessened.
The authors state that in their medical institution all anomalies concerning nonconformity to the required blood bank procedure are documented in occurrence reports. The present strategy for documenting occurrence reports was initiated in the year 1998 (O’neill et al. 2). As such, the reports indicate all the misbranded and WBIT samples discovered by blood bank workers. In the study, the researchers scrutinize blood bank occurrence information from 2001 to 2007. The study captures the entire number of samples that are wrongly labelled, WBIT samples, and ABO/Rh entering done annually throughout the sampled period. The occurrence of wrongly labeled and WBIT samples was then evaluated in the years prior the strategy amendment and subsequent the strategy amendment. The start of the year 2005 was utilized as the isolating point for the pre-intervention and post-intervention assessment. The entire amount of ABO/Rh entering undertaken annually was utilized as the denominator in the evaluations.
The authors note that phlebotomy faults resulting in mismatched transfusions are responsible for an increase in the transfusion-related illnesses and deaths. As such, according to the audit done in the institution in the year 2004 it was found that 13% of the samples were wrongly labeled (O’neill et al. 3). Following the increase in percentage of wrongly labeled samples, the medical institution implemented a tougher strategy in the year 2005. The strategy necessitated that samples be labeled with respect to standard protocol. The change in strategy was supplemented by informative campaign. The campaign stressed in effective and safe ways of gathering and labeling samples. After reading the above illustrations, I believe that the authors should have informed the readers about the possible negative effects of the 13% samples that were wrongly sampled. It is a fact that the errors resulted in a number of transfusion-related illnesses and deaths.
After the policy changes, the authors note that occurrences of WBIT and mislabeled samples lessened. The occurrences decreased by 73.50% and 84.60%, correspondingly. Based on the article’s findings, I noted that the approach advocated by the researchers in study is appropriate in decreasing the number of transfusion-related illnesses and deaths. Compared to other approaches like bar code labeling, the approach was realized in a very short period and at a low cost. After reading the article, I noted that the article is pertinent to quality and should be used in training blood bank workers and other medical staff. The article illustrates how strict adherence to required blood bank sample labeling protocols result in a decrease in incidences of WBIT. In this regard, the article will be helpful in teaching medical personnel on how to gather quality blood bank samples.
O’neill, Edward, Leslie Richardson-Weber, Gina Mccormack, Lynne Uhl, and Richard Haspel. “Strict Adherence to a Blood Bank Specimen Labeling Policy by All Clinical Laboratories Significantly Reduces the Incidence of Wrong Blood in Tube” American Journal of Clinical Pathology 13.2 (2009): 164-68. Print.