ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2026
Diagnostic errors in clinical laboratory testing process: incidence and impacts on patient safety-a 3-year voluntary incident report analysis.
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDiagnostic errors in laboratory processes can compromise the accuracy of final diagnoses. Such errors represent a significant patient safety concern and are linked to adverse clinical outcomes. This study aimed to determine the frequency, types, and impacts of laboratory-related diagnostic errors on the final clinical diagnosis, patient harm, and organizational reputation in a large private hospital network in Thailand.
methodsA retrospective study analyzed diagnostic errors in clinical laboratory testing processes at Bangkok Hospital Headquarters, Thailand, over a 3-year period (1 January 2021-31 December 2023). Data were retrieved from a voluntary incident reporting system covering domains such as clinical hematology, clinical chemistry, metabolic diagnostics, genetics, microbiology, hormonology, serology, and coagulation. Descriptive statistics were employed to classify errors by laboratory process, subprocess, and subtype, identify causal factors, and evaluate the clinical impacts.
resultsOut of 5 951 783 samples processed, 34 395 incidents were reported, of which 1031 (2.9%) related to diagnostic errors. Errors predominantly occurred in the pre-analytical process (89.2%), followed by post-analytical (10.7%) and analytical process (0.1%). The most common error subtypes were incorrect test ordering (48.2%) and specimen collection (34.6%). Human factors accounted for 91.1% of errors, with technical and organizational factors contributing minimally. Of errors, 90.6% had no impact on final clinical diagnosis; 7.8% resulted in delayed diagnosis, 0.9% in missed diagnosis, and 0.7% in wrong diagnoses. Most errors (98%) caused no patient harm, 1.9% led to temporary harm, and one error affected organizational reputation. No sentinel events were reported. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionTo strengthen diagnostic safety across healthcare systems, organizations should adopt comprehensive, system-level strategies that effectively address human-factor vulnerabilities and streamline laboratory workflows. Implementing evidence-based strategies could contribute to achieving higher diagnostic accuracy and advancing patient safety within clinical laboratory processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.