Example of evaluation of two incident reports assessed by one of the experts to be “almost identical”
| Attribute | Case A | Case A2 |
|---|---|---|
| Report date | 3/30/1999 | 7/15/1999 |
| Discovery date | 3/30/1999 | 7/13/1999 |
| Discovery time | 4–8 am | 12–4 pm |
| Discoverer’s job description | Medical laboratory technician | Medical laboratory technician |
| Where discovered | Transfusion service | Transfusion service |
| What happened | Wrong requisition used for crossmatch | Wrong requisition used for group and screen |
| How discovered | On sample check in | At requisition check in |
| Point in process discovered | Before testing patient sample | After component process, before issue |
| Product record action | Patient sample recollected | Patient record corrected |
| Date event occurred | 3/30/1999 | 7/13/1999 |
| Occurrence time | 4–8 am | 12–4 pm |
| Person involved | Registered nurse | Medical laboratory technician |
| Where first occurred | Sample collection | |
| Consequent event type 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Consequent event a | SC | SH |
| Consequent event b | 099 | 099 |
| Antecedent event a | ||
| Antecedent event b | ||
| Follow up | Monitor | Monitor |
| Investigation type | Routine investigation | Routine investigation |
| RL cause code 1 | OK | HRM |
| RL cause code 2 | HKK | HKK |
| RL cause code 3 | OM | OK |