Narrow Results Clear All
- Communication Improvement 2
- Education and Training 2
- Error Reporting and Analysis 1
- Human Factors Engineering 1
- Legal and Policy Approaches 2
- Logistical Approaches 2
- Technologic Approaches 1
Search results for "United States Federal Government"
Journal Article > Study
Kwan BM, Fernald D, Ferrarone P, et al. J Am Board Fam Med. 2019;32:136-145.
Advocate Redi-Code+ blood glucose test strips by Diabetic Supply of Suncoast: recall—labeling error.
MedWatch Safety Alert. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; June 11, 2014.
This announcement describes a recall of blood glucose test strips due to missing information on the label that could result in accidental misuse of test strips and potential delays in diagnosis and treatment of hyper- or hypoglycemia.
Potentially fatal errors with GDH-PQQ [glucose dehydrogenase pyrroloquinoline quinone] glucose monitoring technology.
MedWatch Safety Alert. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; August 13, 2009.
This public health notification raises awareness of the potential for falsely elevated blood glucose readings in patients using therapeutic products containing certain non-glucose sugars.
Grant > Government Resource
AHRQ Risk-informed Intervention Development and Implementation of Safe Practices in Ambulatory Care.
Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; October 2008.
This AHRQ grantee announcement lists 13 projects funded to demonstrate effective strategies in identifying and addressing risks and in improving processes in ambulatory care.
Journal Article > Study
Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Cancer. 2005;104:2205-2213.
This AHRQ-funded study estimated a 12% error rate in cancer diagnosis based on discrepant evaluation of two specimens from the same organ. Investigators compiled web-based pathologic data from four institutions and created a standardized system to establish correlation error frequencies between cytologic and histologic samples during a 6-month period (eg, bronchial washings and a lung biopsy). Findings suggested that error rates were dependent on the institution and an association existed between the institution and error cause, but agreement was lacking on whether these errors resulted from misinterpretation or poor clinical sampling. Disagreement also existed on the clinical significance of the errors, an issue that results from an undeveloped taxonomy in this arena. While a previous systematic review used autopsy findings to report on clinically significant errors, this study builds on that literature by employing a method that is not limited by the overall low rate of autopsies performed nationally.