ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2020
Evaluation of corrective actions of feedback from clinicians on Clinical Laboratory Services at Bamenda Regional Hospital Laboratory, Cameroon.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCustomers' satisfaction is imperative for success. Clinical laboratories continuously strive to attain very high levels of customer satisfaction to serve their clients and maintain accreditation. The concept of customer satisfaction has not yet been asserted in most clinical laboratories in Cameroon.
objectivesOur objectives were to assess the satisfaction of clinicians with the laboratory services at the Bamenda Regional Hospital Laboratory, identify important challenges, corrective actions implemented and changes in satisfaction.
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed secondary data from clinician satisfaction survey records from March 2017 and November 2017. Challenges and implemented corrective actions were identified for assessed statements of dissatisfaction (dissatisfaction rates ≥ 20%) on the March 2017 survey. Satisfaction rates in March 2017 and November 2017 were compared.
resultsHigh levels of dissatisfaction were observed for general satisfaction, waiting time, communication, duty consciousness, specimen collection and approach on the March 2017 survey. The main challenges identified were: lack of respect for the expected length of the waiting time, poor attitude, inadequate information, staff shortage and inadequate supervision. Statistically significant reductions in rates of dissatisfaction were observed for general satisfaction, waiting time, communication, response to emergencies, issuing of results, specimen collection, approach and duty consciousness.
conclusionWaiting time is a major cause of clinician dissatisfaction with laboratory services. The identification of clinicians' challenges and the effective implementation of corrective actions contribute to improvements in clinician satisfaction.
Indexed as
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.