Contribution of Elecromyographic Examination to Neuro-Occlusal Rehabilitation_ Crimson Publishers

 Contribution of Elecromyographic Examination to Neuro-Occlusal Rehabilitation by Amel Belkhiri* in Orthoplastic Surgery & Orthopedic Care International Journal_ Orthopedic Care International Journal

 

Aim
To illustrate the importance of registering a patient’s ID particularly in specimens submitted to the Laboratory for investigations of blood transfusion. Mix-up of patients’ identification remain the commonest factor in producing erroneous reports or giving wrong blood products with potential serious ramifications. We are documenting 3 cases in which this mistake happened despite robust measures in the clinical settings and upon receiving the specimen in the Laboratory with variable consequences.

Case 1
Patient A presented with abdominal pain and was diagnosed with cholelithiasis. A laparoscopic cholecystectomy was planned. Upon registration the receptionist typed the unit number of the patient but with one different digit which resulted in producing labels of a different patient’s name and details. These were not checked and were filed with the notes. At operation the sticky label was peeled off from the notes and put on the specimen and was submitted to the Laboratory. At the Laboratory registration everything seemed fine and a histology report was produced confirming chronic cholecystitis associated with cholelithiasis. A few weeks later the pathologist received a letter from the clinician indicating that he did not perform this procedure on that patient, but he did the surgery on a different patient on the same day. The pathologist reported this as a clinical incident and asked for a formal letter from the surgeon outlining the details of the mistake, registering the incident and taking measures to identify and resolve the problem with further checking in the specimen to stop this incident from happening again.

Case 2
A young patient and her mother visited an outpatient clinic in a private hospital for a routine cervical smear for the daughter. A cervical smear was performed by the gynaecologist and the specimen was submitted for the cytology department for assessment. During screening and at the time of reporting the consultant cytopathologist noted that this patient had a history of a hysterectomy in the past which is documented in our records. The age of the patient was also noted which was 65 years old, but the smear showed no evidence of atrophy compatible with a young patient. Upon calling the gynecologist it was discovered that the sticky label on the request form was showing the mother’s details and not those of the daughter. It transpired that both the mother and the daughter had exactly the same first and surnames producing the confusion and mix-up at the time of registration. The gynecologist confirmed that he performed the procedure on the daughter and not on the mother. It is only by the robust procedure in the cytology department where previous records of each patient should be checked before issuing a new report helped to identify the problem. Again the gynecologist sent a letter documenting the incident and confirming the correct patient details and a correct cytology report was issued.

https://crimsonpublishers.com/ooij/fulltext/OOIJ.000526.php

Crimson Publishers: https://crimsonpublishers.com/

For more articles in Orthopedic Care International Journal,
Please click on below link: https://crimsonpublishers.com/ooij/