ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Patient misidentification and data integrity risks in ultrasound imaging: a case report using multi-framework incident analysis.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital imaging workflows depend on accurate scheduling, patient identity reconciliation, and reliable metadata continuity to ensure safe image storage and retrieval. Disruptions in these processes may not directly affect image acquisition but can delay access to imaging information and pose significant patient safety risks. Objective: To examine a recurrent ultrasound workflow failure that compromised downstream image availability and to identify practical strategies for preventing recurrence. Methods: A retrospectively reported ultrasound incident was examined using a structured case report approach. The event was analyzed using the International Classification for Patient Safety, the Health Information Technology Classification System, the 18-step medical imaging workflow model, a mini-root cause analysis, and a structured risk-control matrix. These complementary frameworks were integrated to classify the incident, localize workflow failures, identify causal mechanisms, and develop preventive and corrective strategies. Results: The incident was classified as a health information technology-related technical and workflow failure with no confirmed patient harm but clear potential for delayed diagnosis and patient misidentification. The failure originated from missing bookings, modality worklist bypass, and manual patient identity entry, resulting in downstream interoperability failures that delayed image retrieval and interpretation. The mini-root cause analysis identified two interacting causal layers: execution-level workflow deviations and latent system vulnerabilities. Risk-control analysis demonstrated that recurrence was primarily driven by inadequate validation safeguards, weak workflow enforcement, and ineffective exception handling. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that seemingly minor workflow deviations can evolve into clinically significant patient safety risks despite technically successful image acquisition. The integrated multi-framework analytical approach provides a practical method for identifying latent sociotechnical vulnerabilities, informing targeted risk-control strategies, and strengthening the safety and resilience of digital imaging workflows.
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.