ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2016
Evaluating laboratory request forms submitted to haematology and blood transfusion departments at a hospital in Northwest Nigeria.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Magnitude of extra-analytical errors and associated factors in medical laboratories in thirteen Public Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.SAGE open medicine · 2023Article
- Information Adequacy in Histopathology Request Forms: A Milestone in Making a Communication Bridge Between Confusion and Clarity in Medical Diagnosis.Turk patoloji dergisi · 2023Article
- Total Clinical Chemistry Laboratory Errors and Evaluation of the Analytical Quality Control Using Sigma Metric for Routine Clinical Chemistry Tests.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- Extra-Analytical Clinical Laboratory Errors in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.EJIFCC · 2020Article
- Errors in the Total Testing Process in the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory at the University of Gondar Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2018Article
- The diagnostic-clinical chasm: Work in progress?African journal of laboratory medicine · 2016Article
- Blood components requests at an orthopedic hospital: a critical survey.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapyArticle
- Audit and education: Role in safe transfusion practice.Asian journal of transfusion scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe laboratory request form (LRF) is a communication link between laboratories, requesting physicians and users of laboratory services. Inadequate information or errors arising from the process of filling out LRFs can significantly impact the quality of laboratory results and, ultimately, patient outcomes.
objectiveWe assessed routinely-submitted LRFs to determine the degree of correctness, completeness and consistency.
methodsLRFs submitted to the Department of Haematology (DH) and Blood Transfusion Services (BTS) of Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital in Kano, Nigeria, between October 2014 and December 2014, were evaluated for completion of all items on the forms. Performance in four quality indicator domains, including patient identifiers, test request details, laboratory details and physician details, was derived as a composite percentage.
resultsOf the 2084 LRFs evaluated, 999 were from DH and 1085 from BTS. Overall, LRF completeness was 89.5% for DH and 81.2% for BTS. Information on patient name, patient location and laboratory number were 100% complete for DH, whereas only patient name was 100% complete for BTS. Incomplete information was mostly encountered on BTS forms for physician's signature (60.8%) and signature of laboratory receiver (63.5%). None of the DH and only 9.4% of BTS LRFs met all quality indicator indices.
conclusionThe level of completion of LRFs from these two departments was suboptimal. This underscores the need to review and redesign the LRF, improve on training and communication between laboratory and clinical staff and review specimen rejection practices.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.