Table 2

Example of evaluation of two incident reports assessed by one of the experts to be “almost identical”

AttributeCase ACase A2
Report date3/30/19997/15/1999
Discovery date3/30/19997/13/1999
Discovery time4–8 am12–4 pm
Discoverer’s job descriptionMedical laboratory technicianMedical laboratory technician
Where discoveredTransfusion serviceTransfusion service
What happenedWrong requisition used for crossmatchWrong requisition used for group and screen
How discoveredOn sample check inAt requisition check in
Point in process discoveredBefore testing patient sampleAfter component process, before issue
Product record actionPatient sample recollectedPatient record corrected
Date event occurred3/30/19997/13/1999
Occurrence time4–8 am12–4 pm
Person involvedRegistered nurseMedical laboratory technician
Where first occurredSample collection
Consequent event type 133
Consequent event aSCSH
Consequent event b099099
Antecedent event a
Antecedent event b
Follow upMonitorMonitor
Investigation typeRoutine investigationRoutine investigation
RL cause code 1OKHRM
RL cause code 2HKKHKK
RL cause code 3OMOK