English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Context.—Incorrectly labeled patient blood specimens create opportunities for laboratory testing personnel to mistake one patient's specimen for a specimen from a different patient. Transfusion of blood that is typed on specimens that are mislabeled can result in acute hemolytic transfusion reactions. Objective.—To assess the rates of blood bank ABO typing specimens that are mislabeled and/or contain blood belonging to another patient (so-called wrong blood in tube [WBIT]), and to compare these rates with those determined in a similar study performed in 2007. Design.—Participants enrolled in this College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study for the first quarter of 2015 tallied the number of mislabeled and WBIT ABO blood typing specimens. Outcome measurements were the number of mislabeled and WBIT instances per 1000 specimens. We also evaluated the effects of various practice characteristics, in particular the use of bar coding, on the outcome measurements. Results.—A total of 30 institutions submitting data on 41 333 ABO blood typing specimens recorded aggregate rates of 7.4 instances of mislabeling (306 specimens) and 0.43 instances of WBIT (10 of 23 234) per 1000 specimens submitted. Mislabeling rates were lower in institutions requiring that specimens be labeled with patients' birth dates than those that did not. The rates of specimen mislabeling and WBIT were otherwise unassociated with any of the other practice variables evaluated. Conclusions.—The rates of ABO blood typing specimen mislabeling and WBIT are not statistically different from those determined in a similar study performed in 2007 (P = .94 and P = .10). The use of bar coding was not associated with lower mislabeling (P = .80) or WBIT rates (P = .79).

Blood Bank Specimen Mislabeling: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 41 333 Blood Bank Specimens in 30 Institutions