Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Hypothesis

Current surgical instrument labeling techniques may increase the risk of unintentionally retained foreign objects: a hypothesis

Authors: Kyros Ipaktchi, Adam Kolnik, Michael Messina, Rodrigo Banegas, Meryl Livermore, Connie Price

Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Marking of surgical instruments is essential to ensure their proper identification after sterile processing. The National Quality Forum defines unintentionally retained foreign objects in a surgical patient as a serious reportable event also called "never event."

Presentation of the hypothesis

We hypothesize that established practices of surgical instrument identification using unkempt tape labels and plastic tags may expose patients to "never events" from retained disintegrating labels.

Testing of the hypothesis

We demonstrate the near miss of a "never event" during a surgical case in which the breakage of an instrument label remained initially unwitnessed. A fragment of the plastic label was accidentally found in the wound upon closing. Further clinical testing of the occurrence of this "never event" appears not feasible. As the name implies a patient should never be exposed to the risk of fragmenting labels.

Implication of the hypothesis

Current practice does not mandate verifying intact instrument markers as part of the instrument count. The clinical confirmation of our hypothesis mandates a change in perioperative practice: Mechanical labels need to undergo routine inspection and maintenance. The perioperative count must not only verify the quantity of surgical instruments but also the intactness of labels to ensure that no part of an instrument is left behind. Proactive maintenance of taped and dipped labels should be performed routinely. The implementation of newer labeling technologies - such as laser engraved codes - appears to eliminate risks seen in traditional mechanical labels.
This article reviews current instrument marking technologies, highlights shortcomings and recommends safe instrument handling and marking practices implementing newer available technologies.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Blackmore CC, Bishop R, Luker S, Williams BL: Applying lean methods to improve quality and safety in surgical sterile instrument processing. Joint Commission J Qual Patient Saf/Joint Commission Resour. 2013, 39: 99-105. Blackmore CC, Bishop R, Luker S, Williams BL: Applying lean methods to improve quality and safety in surgical sterile instrument processing. Joint Commission J Qual Patient Saf/Joint Commission Resour. 2013, 39: 99-105.
2.
go back to reference Samit A, Dodson R: Instrument-marking tapes: an unnecessary hazard. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983, 41: 687-688. 10.1016/0278-2391(83)90029-0.CrossRefPubMed Samit A, Dodson R: Instrument-marking tapes: an unnecessary hazard. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983, 41: 687-688. 10.1016/0278-2391(83)90029-0.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kizer KW, Stegun MB: Serious reportable adverse events in health care. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation (Volume 4: Programs, Tools, and Products). Edited by: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI. 2005, Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Advances in Patient Safety Kizer KW, Stegun MB: Serious reportable adverse events in health care. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation (Volume 4: Programs, Tools, and Products). Edited by: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI. 2005, Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Advances in Patient Safety
6.
go back to reference Kraayenbrink M, Baer ST, Jenkins JG, Moore-Gillon V: Serious hazard of plastic coding tape on surgical instruments. Brit J Surg. 1987, 74: 696-10.1002/bjs.1800740815.CrossRefPubMed Kraayenbrink M, Baer ST, Jenkins JG, Moore-Gillon V: Serious hazard of plastic coding tape on surgical instruments. Brit J Surg. 1987, 74: 696-10.1002/bjs.1800740815.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kostyal DA, Verhage JM, Beezhold DH, Beck WC: Flash sterilization and instrument tape–an experimental study. J Healthcare Mater Manage. 1993, 11: 34-35. Kostyal DA, Verhage JM, Beezhold DH, Beck WC: Flash sterilization and instrument tape–an experimental study. J Healthcare Mater Manage. 1993, 11: 34-35.
10.
go back to reference Sarr MG: Editor's note: retained foreign bodies–why do we still allow them to occur?. Surgery. 2005, 137: 304-305. 10.1016/j.surg.2004.10.005.CrossRefPubMed Sarr MG: Editor's note: retained foreign bodies–why do we still allow them to occur?. Surgery. 2005, 137: 304-305. 10.1016/j.surg.2004.10.005.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Stahel PF, Smith WR, Mehler PS: Patient safety in surgery – current "key" issues. Asian Hosp Healthc Manage. 2008, 60-62. 15 Stahel PF, Smith WR, Mehler PS: Patient safety in surgery – current "key" issues. Asian Hosp Healthc Manage. 2008, 60-62. 15
12.
go back to reference Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, Diaz-Flores R, Gawande AA: The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg. 2008, 248: 337-341. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318181c9a3.CrossRefPubMed Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, Diaz-Flores R, Gawande AA: The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg. 2008, 248: 337-341. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318181c9a3.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Current surgical instrument labeling techniques may increase the risk of unintentionally retained foreign objects: a hypothesis
Authors
Kyros Ipaktchi
Adam Kolnik
Michael Messina
Rodrigo Banegas
Meryl Livermore
Connie Price
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1754-9493
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-7-31

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2013 Go to the issue