Bibliographic Information - Author (s) - Yr Published/Submitted - Publication - Author Affiliations - Funding	Study - Design - Facility/Setting - Time Period - Population/Sample - Comparator - Study bias	Practice - Description - Duration - Training - Staff/Other Resources - Cost	Outcome Measures - Description (s) - Recording method	Results/Findings - Type of Findings - Findings/Effect Size - Stat. Significance/Test(s) - Results/Conclusion Bias
- Geisinger Medical Center (Schuerch C) - 2009 - LMBP Unpublished Submission - Department of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA - Funding: Self-financed	- Design: Observational study - Facility/Setting: Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA; Teaching hospital; 404 beds Time Period: 1/2004–6/2009 Baseline - early barcoding: 1/2004 (1 mo.)* Barcoding practice (full implementation): 1/2009 – 6/2009 (6 mos.) - Sample: Inpatient point-of- care glucose tests Baseline: ~ 18,000/mo. (avg.) Barcoding: 106,780 - Comparator: Initial stage barcode POCT implementation (2002–2004) compared to full implementation (2007–2009). - Study Bias: Baseline sample data include ~ 1/3 barcoding practice (less-than-full implementation), as error reporting began 1/2004.	- Description: POCT (point-of- care test) Barcoding with ongoing reporting of barcoding procedure compliance (scan rate) and patient ID errors to nursing management. - Duration: 9/2002- 6/2009; ongoing - Training: Education of nursing staff on new practice guidelines includes one-on-one nursing educators; placing “scan only” on each meter, and laminated scanning guidelines cards were attached to each meter tote. - Staff/Other Resources: Not reported - Cost: Not reported *Following Improvement Committee investigation reporting after low scan rates (<1/3) and high ID errors	- Description: Patient ID error rate: Monthly # misidentified patients/total glucose POCTs * Monthly average scan rate: # of patient ID wristband barcodes scanned/Total POCT glucose tests Baseline (1/2004): 31.8% Barcoding full implementation (1- 6/2009): 96.7% - Recording method: Information downloaded from all scanning devices for audit reports; documentation of POCT scan rate and error rate	- Pretest-Posttest - Findings/Effect Size: Patient ID error rate Baseline: 2.9% Barcoding practice (full implementation): 0.5% Absolute decrease: 2.4% Relative decrease: 82.8% ➢OR = 5.94 (CI: 5.26–6.71) - Stat. Significance/Tests: Not reported - Results/Conclusion Bias: Pre and post comparison practices include POCT barcoding; results show effect of improving implementation of POCT barcoding as reflected in average scan rates from 31.8% versus 96.7%. Limitation: comparison based on data collected during notably different time periods (5 yrs apart).
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 7 (Fair) Effect Size Magnitude Rating : Substantial (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 2; - Potential study bias: Study design, time period and sample may introduce bias affecting/understating effect size - Baseline period includes ~1/3 barcoding (−1).	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 2	Results/findings (3 pts max.): 1; -Appropriateness of statistical analysis: Data provided not sufficient to verify calculation of effect size - baseline sample (−1) -Uncontrolled deviations: Results/effect size reported includes barcoding in both baseline (~1/3) and practice samples (−1)
Kenmore Mercy Hospital, Catholic Health System (Jarnot J and Weber A) - 2011 - LMBP Unpublished Submission - Kenmore Mercy Hospital; Kenmore, New York - Funding: Self-Funded	- Design: Before-after - Facility/Setting: Kenmore Mercy Hospital; Kenmore, NY; teaching hospital; 100- 300 beds - Time Period: 1/1/2007 – 5/31/2011 Pre: 16 mos. (1/2007 – 4/2008) Post: 37 mos. (5/2008 – 5/2011) - Sample: All hospital inpatient and Emergency Department POC glucose tests Pre: 79,437 Post: 184,491 - Comparator: Patient wristband with typed patient identifying information (name, date of birth, medical record number) - Study bias: None noted	- Description: POC glucose tests with barcoded patient ID wristbands with account/billing # - Duration: 4/21/2008 – 5/31/2011; ongoing. - Training: Training, re-training and communication/feedback using data reports; also included internal competition. POC glucose barcoding implemented as an upgrade to pharmacy barcoding which first introduced nurses to the process of scanning a barcode prior to actions. - Staff/Other Resources: Nursing staff - Cost: Not reported	- Description: Patient ID error rate (%): # Patient ID errors/total # POC glucose tests (Error: Patient ID # from glucometer does not match current patient ) - Recording Method: Glucometer data management system audit of daily testing log flags ID #s not matched to patients. Monthly review of ID errors by the POC department. Comparative statistics provided for each nurse manager. Same recording practice pre- and post-barcoding.	Pretest-Posttest Findings/Effect Size: Patient ID error rate Pre : 2.16% (1,716/79,437) Post: 0.57% (1,051/184,491) Absolute decrease: 1.6% Relative decrease: 73.6% ➢ OR = 3.85 (CI: 3.56–4.16) - Stat. Significance/Test(s): None reported - Results/Conclusions Bias: None noted
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 10 (Good) Effect Size Magnitude Rating: Substantial (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 3	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 2	Results/findings (3 pts maximum): 3
Mercy Hospital of Buffalo, Catholic Health System (Jarnot J and Weber A) - 2011 - LMBP Unpublished Submission - Mercy Hospital of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York - Funding: Self-Funded	- Design: Before-after - Facility/Setting: Mercy Hospital of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; teaching hospital; > 300 beds - Time Period: 1/1/2007 – 5/31/2011 Pre: 17 mos. (1/2007 – 5/2008) Post: 36 mos. (6/2008 – 5/2011) - Sample: All hospital inpatient and Emergency Department POC glucose tests Pre: 249,667 Post: 517,744 - Comparator: Patient wristband with typed patient identifying information (name, date of birth, medical record number) - Study bias: None noted	- Description: POC glucose tests with barcoded patient ID wristbands with account/billing # - Duration: 5/28/2008 – 5/31/2011; ongoing - Training: Training, re-training and communication/feedback using data reports; also included internal competition. POC glucose barcoding implemented as an upgrade to pharmacy barcoding which first introduced nurses to the process of scanning a barcode prior to actions. - Staff/Other Resources: Nursing staff - Cost: Not reported	- Description: Patient ID error rate (%): # Patient ID errors/total # POC glucose tests (Error: Patient ID # from glucometer does not match current patient ) - Recording Method: Glucometer data management system audit of daily testing log flags ID #s not matched to patients. Monthly review of ID errors by the POC department. Comparative statistics provided for each nurse manager. Same recording practice pre- and post-barcoding.	Pretest-Posttest Findings/Effect Size: Patient ID error rate Pre : 2.24% (5,589/249,667) Post: 0.44% (2,256/517,744) Absolute decrease: 1.8% Relative decrease: 80.4% ➢OR = 5.23 (CI: 4.98 – 5.50) - Stat. Significance/Test(s): None reported - Results/Conclusions Bias: None noted.
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 10 (Good) Effect Size Magnitude Rating: Substantial (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 3	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 2	Results/findings (3 pts maximum): 3
Sisters of Charity Hospital Buffalo, Catholic Health System (Jarnot J and Weber A) - 2011 - LMBP Unpublished Submission - Sisters of Charity Hospital, Buffalo, New York - Funding: Self-Funded	- Design: Before-after - Facility/Setting: Sisters of Charity Hospital, Buffalo, NY teaching hospital; 100- 300 beds - Time Period: 1/1/2007 – 5/31/2011 Pre: 17 mos. (1/2007 – 5/2008) Post: 36 mos. (6/2008 – 5/2011) - Sample: All hospital inpatient and Emergency Department POC glucose tests Pre: 120,718 Post: 259,787 - Comparator: Patient wristband with typed patient identifying information (name, date of birth, medical record number) - Study bias: None noted	- Description: POC glucose tests with barcoded patient ID wristbands with account/billing # - Duration: 5/19/2008 – 5/31/2011; ongoing. - Training: Training, re-training and communication/feedback using data reports; also included internal competition. POC glucose barcoding implemented as an upgrade to pharmacy barcoding which first introduced nurses to the process of scanning a barcode prior to actions. - Staff/Other Resources: Nursing staff - Cost: Not reported	- Description: Patient ID error rate (%): # Patient ID errors/total # POC glucose tests (Error: Patient ID # from glucometer does not match current patient ) - Recording Method: Glucometer data management system audit of daily testing log flags ID #s not matched to patients. Monthly review of ID errors by the POC department. Comparative statistics provided for each nurse manager. Same recording practice pre- and post-barcoding.	Pretest-Posttest Findings/Effect Size: Patient ID error rate Pre : 1.56% (1,888/120,718) Post: 0.42% (1,096/259,787) Absolute decrease: 1.1% Relative decrease: 73.1% ➢OR = 3.75 (CI: 3.48 – 4.04) - Stat. Significance/Test(s): None reported - Results/Conclusions Bias: None noted.
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 10 (Good) Effect Size Magnitude Rating: Substantial (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 3	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 2	Results/findings (3 pts maximum): 3
Sisters of Charity Hospital St. Joseph’s Campus, Catholic Health System (Jarnot J and Weber A) - 2011 - LMBP Unpublished Submission - Sisters of Charity Hospital St. Joseph’s Campus, Cheektowaga, New York - Funding: Self-Funded	- Design: Before-after - Facility/Setting: Sisters of Charity Hospital St. Joseph’s Campus, Cheektowaga, NY; teaching hospital; 100- 300 beds - Time Period: 1/1/2007 – 5/31/2011 Pre: 11 mos. (1/2007 – 11/2007) Post: 42 mos. (12//2007 – 5/2011) - Sample: All hospital inpatient and Emergency Department POC glucose tests Pre: 44,932 Post: 182,150 - Comparator: Patient wristband with typed patient identifying information (name, date of birth, medical record number) - Study bias: None noted	- Description: POC glucose tests with barcoded patient ID wristbands with account/billing # - Duration: 11/26/2007 – 5/31/2011; ongoing. - Training: Training, re-training and communication/feedback using data reports; also included internal competition. POC glucose barcoding implemented as an upgrade to pharmacy barcoding which first introduced nurses to the process of scanning a barcode prior to actions. - Staff/Other Resources: Nursing staff - Cost: Not reported	- Description: Patient ID error rate (%): # Patient ID errors/total # POC glucose tests (Error: Patient ID # from glucometer does not match current patient ) - Recording Method: Glucometer data management system audit of daily testing log flags ID #s not matched to patients. Monthly review of ID errors by the POC department. Comparative statistics provided for each nurse manager. Same recording practice pre- and post-barcoding.	Pretest-Posttest Findings/Effect Size: Patient ID error rate Pre : 3.22% (1,449/44,932) Post: 0.54% ( 992/182,150) Absolute decrease: 2.7% Relative decrease: 83.2% ➢ OR = 6.09 (CI: 5.61 – 6.60) - Stat. Significance/Test(s): None reported - Results/Conclusions Bias: None noted.
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 10 (Good) Effect Size Magnitude Rating: Substantial (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 3	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 2	Results/findings (3 pts maximum): 3
Unpublished Study B – POCT Barcoding (Anonymous) - 2009 - LMBP Unpublished Submission - Midwest Academic Medical Center, Minnesota, USA - Funding: In-house, quality management project	- Design: Before-after - Facility/Setting: Midwest- MN Pathology Lab, Teaching Hospital with affiliated clinic sites; > 300 beds. - Time Period: 1/1/2009 – 6/30/2009; Pre: 1st Quarter 2009 (1/1/2009 – 3/31/2009) – 3 mos. Post: 2nd Quarter 2009 (4/1/09 – 6/30/09 ) – 3 mos. - Sample: All inpatient and outpatient bedside POC glucose tests; Annual total (2008): 247,000 - Comparator: Manually verify patient armband to glucose work list - Study bias: Barcoding period includes pre-barcoding (4/1/09 – 4/27/09)	- Description: POCT barcoding for glucose tests by adding a barcode to the patient armband readable by POCT devices. - Duration: 4/28/2009 – 6/30/2009; ongoing - Training: Training needs are modest – time to train all glucose users on new process; support for barcode accessories; on-going training on policy and process updates. - Staff/Other Resources: Time to identify & test new armband- materials barcodes, develop barcodes for user-id and maintain process - Cost: Not reported	- Description: Patient ID error rate (%): POC glucose test results with either incorrectly entered (miskeyed) patient ID or reported on the wrong patient (two measures combined) - Recording Method: Occurrence reports (numerator); financial reports for total number of tests (denominator)	Pretest-Posttest Findings/Effect Size: Patient ID error rate Pre : 1.987% Post: 1.381% Absolute decrease: 0.6% Relative decrease: 30.1% ➢ OR = 1.59 (CI: 0.85 – 2.99) (Note: Denominator of rate estimated from data provided by author – not explicitly stated.) - Stat. Significance/Test(s): None reported - Results/Conclusions Bias: Authors state Std Dev and means reported – none provided; denominator info not provided to replicate results. No power or stat. test reported
Quality Rating (10 point maximum): 5 (Poor: Results/Findings rating = 0 Effect Size Magnitude Rating: N/A (Relevance: Direct)	Study (3 pts maximum): 1; - Potential study bias: Study Post sample likely to introduce bias substantially affecting/understating effect size - includes 100% non-barcoded tests for 27 days (4/1–4/27) of 3 mo. Period (−2).	Practice (2 pts maximum): 2	Outcome measures (2 pts maximum): 2	Results/findings (3 pts maximum): 0; - Sample Sufficiency: Sample size (# tests) not reported (−2) - Uncontrolled deviations: Barcoding effect size not clearly attributable to practice: ~1/3 of time period based on comparison practice (−2)