Learning Outcomes
Upon
completion of this exercise, participants should be able to
- Discuss procedures used to verify patient identification
when collecting pretransfusion blood specimens
- Discuss the importance of patient records in preventing
misidentification in the transfusion service
- Describe
a suitable investigation protocol when a patient's current blood type
disagrees with the historical record
- List
the places that patient misidentification can occur prior to transfusion
- Explain
precautions related to the use of records
Case Report
|
A 50-year-old female (AW) was admitted to
hospital for a radical hysterectomy to treat cervical cancer. A crossmatch for
2 units of RBC was ordered.
|
|
History
-
Transfusion: 2
RBC 10 years ago for postpartum hemorrhage. Patient was group A Rh positive,
antibody screen negative
-
Pregnancy:
two
-
Medications:
occasional ibuprofen for osteoarthritis pain
|
Transfusion Service Results
Initial pretransfusion testing results
Based on these results
- a new blood sample was
collected and retested STAT
- all crossmatched inventory was put on
temporary hold
Pretransfusion testing results
(recollected specimen)
|
Whenever an ABO group on a current specimen
does not agree with the patient's historical blood group, there are
several possibilities, including:
-
Patient misidentification has occurred
now or in the past (one of the specimens is not from the patient)
-
The
incorrect group was entered in the records due to a clerical
error
-
The patient has had a bone marrow or
stem cell transplant and has changed blood groups
In this case the
results on the recollected specimen determined that patient
misidentification had occurred on this admission and that the initial
specimen was not from patient AW.
The blood collector (SH) who had drawn the first specimen
had completed her shift and was off duty. She was immediately contacted at home and questioned about the collection procedure for
the patient in question.
After much discussion SH said that
she used computer-generated patient identification labels and admitted to pre-labelling
specimen tubes for two patients on her last
collection trip of the day because she was in a rush to finish her shift. She
insisted that she had checked patient arm bands for all collections as
that was her normal procedure.
|
|
Follow-Up
and Case Outcome
Every patient whose crossmatch sample was drawn by the collector on her last
collection run was recollected and tested. Of five patients, one (OP, who
was in the same room as AW) showed a blood group discrepancy. OP (a patient with no
record of prior testing) had
initially tested as group A Rh positive and 3 units of RBC had been
successfully crossmatched. However, OP now typed as group O Rh
positive.
These results suggested that the collector had switched blood samples and
drawn AW's (group A blood) into the specimen tube labelled for OP (who was
really group O) and vice versa.
OP was re-crossmatched with group O Rh positive RBC.
Crossmatched inventory was taken off hold and made available for issue.
|

Discussion
See the
case discussion, including
interactive questions with feedback.
Final Quiz
This quiz is offered as a self assessment.
- At which two stages do most identification
errors occur prior to transfusion?
- With
regard to using a patient's records for blood transfusion, provide an
example when it is
- clearly
acceptable to do so for the patient's safety
- clearly
unacceptable to do so for the patient's safety
- open
to the judgement of individual transfusion services
- When
collecting a blood specimen for pretransfusion testing, which of the
following procedures conform to acceptable practice?
- The identity of the person drawing the blood sample must be documented.
- Blood specimens can be prelabelled before entering the patient's room
providing the patient has an identification band.
- If there is a discrepancy between patient identity on the identification
band and the requisition, the specimen can be collected and the
discrepancy resolved later.
- The date and time of specimen collection must be documented.
- When a patient's current blood group and historical blood group do not
coincide, a new specimen should be collected and tested immediately.
- If the patient is semi-conscious and cannot
spell his or her first and last name, a responsible adult such as a
relative, nurse or physician may identify the patient.
- Whenever
a discrepancy is found between a patient's current blood grouping results
and historical record, why is it good practice to hold previously
crosssmatched blood for all patients until the discrepancy is resolved or,
alternatively, to issue group O Rh negative RBC if transfusions are urgently
required?
- Why
is correct patient identity crucial for pretransfusion testing?
Further Reading
CBBS e-Network Forum:
Compatibility
testing for issuing non-rbc components
Callum, JL, Kaplan, HS, Merkley, L L,
Pinkerton, PH, Rabin Fastman, B, Romans, RA. Reporting of near-miss
events for transfusion medicine: improving transfusion safety. Transfusion
2001; 41: 1204-11. [
Medline
]
Contreras M, de Silva M. Preventing
incompatible transfusions. Br Med J 1994; 308(6938): 1180-1. [
full
text ]
Linden JV, Wagner K, Voytovich AE, Sheehan J.
Transfusion errors in New York State: an analysis of 10 years' experience.
Transfusion 2000;40(10):1207-13. [
Medline
]
Lumadue, JA, JS Boyd, and PM Ness.
Adherence to a strict specimen-labeling policy decreases the incidence of
erroneous blood grouping of blood bank specimens. Transfusion.
1997;37:1169–72. [
Medline
]
McClelland DBL, Phillips P. Errors in blood
transfusion in Britain: survey of hospital haematology departments. Br Med J
1994;308:1205-6.
[Full Text]
Mercuriali F, Inghilleri G, Colotti MT, Fare M, Biffi E, Vinci A, Podico M, Scalamogna R.
Bedside transfusion errors: analysis of 2 years' use of a system to monitor and prevent transfusion errors.Vox
Sang 1996;70(1):16-20. [
Medline
]
Williamson LM, Lowe S, Love EM, Cohen H, Soldan
K, McClelland DB, et al. Serious
hazards of transfusion (SHOT) initiative: analysis of the first two annual
reports. Br Med J 1999;319:16-9. [
full
text ]