Seven hundred and fifty-nine (759) chances to learn: a 3-year pilot project to analyse transfusion-related near-miss events in the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The National Haemovigilance Office has collected and analysed reports on errors associated with transfusion since 2000. A 3-year pilot research project in near-miss event reporting commenced in November 2002. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Near-miss reports from 10 hospital sites were analysed between May 2003 and May 2005. The Medical Event Reporting System for Transfusion Medicine was used to collect and analyse the data. Root cause analysis was used to identify causes of error. RESULTS: A total of 759 near-miss events were reported. Near misses are occurring 18 times more frequently than adverse events causing harm. Sample collection was found to be the highest risk step in the work process and was the first site of error in 468 (62%) events. Of these, 13 (3%) involved samples taken from the wrong patient. Medical staff were frequently involved in error. The general wards and emergency department were identified as high-risk clinical areas, in addition, 78 (10%) events occurred within the transfusion laboratory. Three specific human and two system failures were shown to have been associated with the errors identified in this study. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that near-miss events occur far more frequently than adverse events causing harm. Collecting near-miss data is an effective means of highlighting human and system failures associated with transfusion that may otherwise go unnoticed. These data can be used to identify areas where resources need to be targeted in order to prevent future harm to patients, improving the overall safety of transfusion.

Reporting of near-miss events for transfusion medicine: improving transfusion safety.

BACKGROUND: Half of the reported serious adverse events from transfusion are a consequence of medical error. A no-fault medical-event reporting system for transfusion medicine (MERS-TM) was developed to capture and analyze both near-miss and actual transfusion-related errors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective audit of transfusion-related errors was performed to determine the ability of MERS-TM to identify the frequency and patterns of errors. RESULTS: Events and near-miss events (total, 819) were recorded for a period of 19 months (median, 51/month). No serious adverse patient outcome occurred, despite these events, with the transfusion of 17,465 units of RBCs. Sixty-one events (7.4%) were potentially life-threatening or could have led to permanent injury (severity Level 1). Of most concern were 3 samples collected from the wrong patient, 13 mislabeled samples, and 22 requests for blood for the wrong patient. Near-miss events were five times more frequent than actual transfusion errors, and 68 percent of errors were detected before blood was issued. Sixty-one percent of events originated from patient areas, 35 percent from the blood bank, and 4 percent from the blood supplier or other hospitals. Repeat collection was required for 1 of every 94 samples, and 1 in 346 requests for blood components was incorrect. Education of nurses and alterations to blood bank forms were not by themselves effective in reducing severe errors. An artifactual 50-percent reduction in the number of errors reported was noted during a 6-month period when two chief members of the event-reporting team were on temporary leave. CONCLUSION: The MERS-TM allowed the recognition and analysis of errors, determination of patterns of errors, and monitoring for changes in frequency after corrective action was implemented. Although no permanent injury resulted from the 819 events, innovative mechanisms must be designed to prevent these errors, instead of relying on faulty informal checks to capture errors after they occur.