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

[Kim Donadio]

I agree, inviting problems. Having the numbers in consecutive order is helpful for numerous reasons.  Also, I can not imagine how having one case as 85310 and the next case as 14275 be anymore of a security or privacy improvement as 1435, 1436. They still get a number.  Horrible idea in my opinion. Kim D
      From: Michael LaFriniere via Histonet <histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
 To: "histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu" <histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu> 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:00 AM
 Subject: [Histonet] FW: Using randomly generated anonymizing numbers for internal tracting of specimens
   



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael LaFriniere 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:31 AM
To: 'Wheelock, Timothy R.'
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Using randomly generated anonymizing numbers for internal tracting of specimens

Since we also perform types of Research in our laboratory for several companies, Is there a particular reason why NIH is asking for this? Unless there is a sound reasoning for such a request, I agree, this may just be inviting problems

Michael
Michael R. LaFriniere, HT (ASCP)
Executive Director


Capital Choice Pathology Laboratory
12041 Bournefield Way, Suite A . Silver Spring, MD 20904
P: 240.471.3427 . F: 240.471.3401 . Cell 410-940-8844 michael.lafriniere at ccplab.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Wheelock, Timothy R. via Histonet [mailto:histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:07 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


_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet at lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet