rss
Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:344-348 doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.010496
  • Original Article

Acceptability of identification bracelets for hospital inpatients

  1. A Cleopas1,
  2. V Kolly1,
  3. P A Bovier2,
  4. P Garnerin3,
  5. T V Perneger1
  1. 1Quality of Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
  2. 2Department of Community Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
  3. 3Division of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to:
 A Cleopas
 Quality of Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; agatta.cleopashcugc.ch
  • Accepted 26 July 2004

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether hospitalised patients would agree to wear an identification bracelet and whether patient acceptability is improved by more detailed explanations or by using a code instead of a name on the bracelet.

Design: Patient survey that tested two variables in a randomised factorial design. Explanations about identification bracelets were given (a) with or without examples of situations where patient identification may be important, and (b) with the patient name or an anonymous code appearing on the bracelet.

Setting: Swiss teaching hospital where wearing of identification bracelets was not systematic.

Participants: Adult patients discharged from hospital (n = 1411).

Main outcome measures: Patients’ responses to the questions: (a) should the hospital introduce a compulsory identification bracelet? and (b) would the patient agree to wear such a bracelet?

Results: Globally, 83.9% of patients thought that the hospital should introduce bracelets and 90.2% stated that they would agree to wear one. Providing examples increased support for both the hospital policy (87.9% v 79.2%, p<0.001) and personal acceptance (92.2% v 88.1%, p = 0.015). Whether or not the bracelet carried the patient’s name or an anonymous code did not influence patient choice.

Conclusions: The majority of patients were in favour of wearing an identification bracelet during their hospital stay. This proportion increased significantly when an explanation based on examples of the consequences of incorrect patient identification had been provided.

Footnotes

  • See editorial commentary, p 329

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.