Example of evaluation of two incident reports assessed by one of the experts to be “similar”
| Attribute | Case R | Case R2 |
|---|---|---|
| Report date | 9/9/1999 | 4/11/1999 |
| Discovery date | 9/9/1999 | 4/11/1999 |
| Discovery time | 12–4 am | 12–4 am |
| Discoverer’s job description | Medical laboratory technician | Medical laboratory technician |
| Where discovered | Transfusion service | Transfusion service |
| What happened | Wrong RBC expiration entered in Hemocare | Wrong expiration date entered when RBC modified to irradiated |
| How discovered | Upon transfusion reaction investigation | MLT discovered immediately issue record |
| Point in process discovered | After issue, before infusion | After issue, before infusion |
| Product record action | Unit destroyed | Unit destroyed |
| Date event occurred | 8/9/1999 | 4/11/1999 |
| Occurrence time | 12–4 pm | 12–4 am |
| Person involved | Registered nurse | Registered nurse |
| Where first occurred | ||
| Consequent event type 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Consequent event a | PC | UM |
| Consequent event b | 002 | 001 |
| Antecedent event a | ||
| Antecedent event b | ||
| Follow up | Monitor | Monitor |
| Investigation type | Routine investigation | Routine investigation |
| RL cause code 1 | HSS | HSS |
| RL cause code 2 | TEX | TD |
| RL cause code 3 | TEX | |