Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28879111›Full record

ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2016

Evaluating laboratory request forms submitted to haematology and blood transfusion departments at a hospital in Northwest Nigeria.

Feyisayo Jegede, Henry A Mbah, Ado Dakata, Dalhatu H Gwarzo, Surajudeen A Abdulrahman, Aisha Kuliya-Gwarzo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The diagnostic-clinical chasm: Work in progress?African journal of laboratory medicine · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Feyisayo JegedeFamily Health International 360 (FHI360), Department of Laboratory Services, Abuja, Nigeria.
Henry A MbahLabTrail Global, Smyrna, Delaware, United States.
Ado DakataDepartment of Haematology, Bayero University/Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria.
Dalhatu H GwarzoDepartment of Haematology, Bayero University/Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria.
Surajudeen A AbdulrahmanFamily Health International 360 (FHI360), Department of Laboratory Services, Abuja, Nigeria.
Aisha Kuliya-GwarzoDepartment of Haematology, Bayero University/Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID28879111
PMCPMC5436401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.