PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15597557

Information systems and human error in the lab.

Abstract

Health system costs in clinical laboratories are incurred daily due to human error. Indeed, a major impetus for automating clinical laboratories has always been the opportunity it presents to simultaneously reduce cost and improve quality of operations by decreasing human error. But merely automating these processes is not enough. To the extent that introduction of these systems results in operators having less practice in dealing with unexpected events or becoming deskilled in problemsolving, however new kinds of error will likely appear. Clinical laboratories could potentially benefit by integrating findings on human error from modern behavioral science into their operations. Fully understanding human error requires a deep understanding of human information processing and cognition. Predicting and preventing negative consequences requires application of this understanding to laboratory operations. Although the occurrence of a particular error at a particular instant cannot be absolutely prevented, human error rates can be reduced. The following principles are key: an understanding of the process of learning in relation to error; understanding the origin of errors since this knowledge can be used to reduce their occurrence; optimal systems should be forgiving to the operator by absorbing errors, at least for a time; although much is known by industrial psychologists about how to write operating procedures and instructions in ways that reduce the probability of error, this expertise is hardly ever put to use in the laboratory; and a feedback mechanism must be designed into the system that enables the operator to recognize in real time that an error has occurred.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael G Bissell. Information systems and human error in the lab.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15597557/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality.

CONTEXT: Comparisons of risk-adjusted hospital performance often are important components of public reports, pay-for-performance programs, and quality improvement initiatives. Risk-adjustment equations used in these analyses must contain sufficient clinical detail to ensure accurate measurements of hospital quality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on risk-adjusted hospital mortality rates of adding present on admission codes and numerical laboratory data to administrative claims data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Comparison of risk-adjustment equations for inpatient mortality from July 2000 through June 2003 derived by sequentially adding increasingly difficult-to-obtain clinical data to an administrative database of 188 Pennsylvania hospitals. Patients were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage, or pneumonia or underwent an abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or craniotomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: C statistics as a measure of the discriminatory power of alternative risk-adjustment models (administrative, present on admission, laboratory, and clinical for each of the 5 conditions and 3 procedures). RESULTS: The mean (SD) c statistic for the administrative model was 0.79 (0.02). Adding present on admission codes and numerical laboratory data collected at the time of admission resulted in substantially improved risk-adjustment equations (mean [SD] c statistic of 0.84 [0.01] and 0.86 [0.01], respectively). Modest additional improvements were obtained by adding more complex and expensive to collect clinical data such as vital signs, blood culture results, key clinical findings, and composite scores abstracted from patients' medical records (mean [SD] c statistic of 0.88 [0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the value of adding present on admission codes and numerical laboratory values to administrative databases. Secondary abstraction of difficult-to-obtain key clinical findings adds little to the predictive power of risk-adjustment equations.

Clinical Laboratory Information Systems↗

Definition of an XML markup language for clinical laboratory procedures and comparison with generic XML markup.

BACKGROUND: Clinical laboratory procedure manuals are typically maintained as word processor files and are inefficient to store and search, require substantial effort for review and updating, and integrate poorly with other laboratory information. Electronic document management systems could improve procedure management and utility. As a first step toward building such systems, we have developed a prototype electronic format for laboratory procedures using Extensible Markup Language (XML). METHODS: Representative laboratory procedures were analyzed to identify document structure and data elements. This information was used to create a markup vocabulary, CLP-ML, expressed as an XML Document Type Definition (DTD). To determine whether this markup provided advantages over generic markup, we compared procedures structured with CLP-ML or with the vocabulary of the Health Level Seven, Inc. (HL7) Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) narrative block. RESULTS: CLP-ML includes 124 XML tags and supports a variety of procedure types across different laboratory sections. When compared with a general-purpose markup vocabulary (CDA narrative block), CLP-ML documents were easier to edit and read, less complex structurally, and simpler to traverse for searching and retrieval. CONCLUSION: In combination with appropriate software, CLP-ML is designed to support electronic authoring, reviewing, distributing, and searching of clinical laboratory procedures from a central repository, decreasing procedure maintenance effort and increasing the utility of procedure information. A standard electronic procedure format could also allow laboratories and vendors to share procedures and procedure layouts, minimizing duplicative word processor editing. Our results suggest that laboratory-specific markup such as CLP-ML will provide greater benefit for such systems than generic markup.

Clinical Laboratory Information Systems↗