The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improving Patient Safety by Repeating (Read-Back) Telephone Reports of Critical Information
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [41]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Singh, H., Naik, A. D., Rao, R., & Petersen, L. A. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0393-z · Cited by 162
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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