Wrong blood in tube error: first study on donor blood samples

Administration Safety of Blood Products - Lessons Learned from a National Registry for Transfusion and Hemotherapy Practice

BACKGROUND

Compared to blood component safety, the administration of blood may not be as safe as intended. The German Interdisciplinary Task Force for Clinical Hemotherapy (IAKH) specialized registry for administration errors of blood products was chosen for a detailed analysis of reports.

METHODS

Voluntarily submitted critical incident reports (n = 138) from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Incidents occurred in the operation room (34.1%), in the ICU (25.2%), and in the peripheral ward (18.5%). Procedural steps with errors were administration to the patient (27.2%), indication and blood order (17.1%), patient identification (17.1%), and blood sample withdrawal and tube labeling (18.0%). Bedside testing (BST) of blood groups avoided errors in only 2.6%. Associated factors were routine work conditions (66%), communication error (36%), emergency case (26%), night or weekend team (39%), untrained personnel (19%). Recommendations addressed process and quality (n = 479) as well as structure quality (n = 314). In 189 instances, an IT solution would have helped to avoid the error.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration process is prone to errors at the patient assessment for the need to transfuse and the application of blood products to patients. BST is only detecting a minority of handling errors. According to the expert recommendations for practice improvement, the potential to improve transfusion safety by a technical solution is considerable.

Wrong blood in tube - potential for serious outcomes: can it be prevented?

'Wrong blood in tube' (WBIT) errors, where the blood in the tube is not that of the patient identified on the label, may lead to catastrophic outcomes, such as death from ABO-incompatible red cell transfusion. Transfusion is a multistep, multidisciplinary process in which the human error rate has remained unchanged despite multiple interventions (education, training, competency testing and guidelines). The most effective interventions are probably the introduction of end-to-end electronic systems and a group-check sample for patients about to receive their first transfusion, but neither of these eradicates all errors. Further longer term studies are required with assessment before and after introduction of the intervention. Although most focus has been on WBIT in relation to blood transfusion, all pathology samples should be identified and linked to the correct patient with the same degree of care. Human factors education and training could help to increase awareness of human vulnerability to error, particularly in the medical setting where there are many risk factors.