Cited by 120Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improving Patient Safety by Repeating (Read-Back) Telephone Reports of Critical Information

Barenfanger, Joan, Sautter, Robert L., Lang, Diane L., Collins, Susan M., Hacek, Donna M., Peterson, Lance R.·2004·American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Abstract

Reducing the rate of avoidable errors is crucial to patient safety. Telephone calls with misunderstood critical results constitute one area in which opportunities for improvement exist. The aviation industry has dealt with this issue by requiring pilots to repeat instructions received from the air traffic controller. At 3 health care organizations, we tested a program to decrease telephone reporting errors by requiring the recipients of critical results to repeat the message. Of 822 outgoing telephone calls from the laboratory, 29 errors were detected (error rate 3.5%). Calls to physicians had the highest rate of errors (6/95 [5%]). The time required to ask for the information and for the message to be repeated averaged 12.8 seconds per call, which corrected 29 errors. A simple system of repeating telephoned laboratory results has the potential to reduce the risk of medical errors and improve patient safety.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1309/9dym6r0tm830u95q

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Read-back verification requires the clinician to repeat the information back to the person who transmitted it, completing the loop of reception and acknowledgement in a verifiable manner.

    “Another intervention known as “read-back verification” requires the clinician to repeat the information back to the person who transmitted it, completing the loop of reception and acknowledgement in a verifiable manner.41”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Barenfanger, J., Sautter, R. L., Lang, D. L., Collins, S. M., Hacek, D. M., & Peterson, L. R.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Medical Center (US)
  • Harrisburg Hospital (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Published
2004-06
Volume
121
Issue
6
Pages
801-803
ISSN
  • 0002-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7722
OpenAlex
W4243992257
Cited by
120
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
patient safety, message repetition, medical errors, physician-laboratory communication, aviation safety model, error detection
MeSH terms
Humans, Pathology, Clinical, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Telephone, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review