[Histonet] Using randomly generated anonymizing numbers for internal tracting of specimens

[Morken, Timothy]

Interesting. I can see the point if they want total opacity as to person ID. Is only the number supposed to appear on the label? How about a second identifier? 

It would not cause mistakes in labeling (because the labels come from the system) as long as you are following one-piece workflow. But doing so will make it necessary to scan a barcode (or OCR to read the number) to open any case for anything. Necessary because typos on manual entering will be a problem (unless you trust people to ALWAYS check a second identifier. I don't!). It is not really so bad as long as you have easy access to a computer at all times in order to look up the case, including all slide, block and tissue storage. 

And, how do you store materials? We do it now essentially by date (sequential number). How do you store and retrieve a random number? Randomly?  If you had a robotic warehouse it could be done. Do you?


Tim Morken
Pathology Site Manager, Parnassus 
Supervisor, Electron Microscopy/Neuromuscular Special Studies
Department of Pathology
UC San Francisco Medical Center



-----Original Message-----
From: Wheelock, Timothy R. via Histonet [mailto:histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:07 AM
To: histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] Using randomly generated anonymizing numbers for internal tracting of specimens

Hi Everyone:

It appears that for security and privacy reasons, the NIH wants us to change from an internal specimen tracking system that employees sequential numbers(8634, 8635, 8636 etc.) to a system that uses randomly generated anonymizing number (20487, 71936, 88011 etc.) It seems to me that this invites mistakes and mixing up of cases. (Humans seem to deal better with sequential numbers). This would include everything, from the buckets with formaldehyde in which half brains are fixed, to wax blocks, to slides, to block and slide files, to the images that I take on each case.
                Does anyone have experience using  computer generated random anonymizing tracking numbers in their pathology or tissue banking departments? What system of checks do you employee to  avoid mistakes and make the work go smoothly? Perhaps this system will work fine, once we are used to it.

                Thank you very much for any feedback.

Tim Wheelock
Harvard Brain Bank
McLean Hospital
Belmont, MA


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet