ArticlePloS one2020
The impact of physician education regarding the importance of providing complete clinical information on the request forms of thrombophilia-screen tests at Tygerberg hospital in South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptance and adoption determinants of telemedicine in public healthcare institutions.Curationis · 2025Article
- The impact of laboratory staff training workshops on coagulation specimen rejection rates.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThrombophilia-screen tests are specialised haemostasis tests that are affected by numerous unique patient variables including the presence of acute thrombosis, the concomitant use of medication and patient demographics. Complete information on the request form is therefore crucial for the haematological pathologist to make patient-specific interpretation of patients' results.
objectivesTo assess the completeness of thrombophilia-screen test request forms and determine the impact of provision of incomplete information, on the interpretive comments generated by reporting haematological pathologists. To assess the impact of an educational session given to clinicians on the importance of providing all the relevant information on the request forms.
methodTwo retrospective audits, each covering 3 months, were performed to evaluate the completeness of demographic and clinical information on thrombophilia-screen request forms and its impact on the quality of the interpretive comments before and after an educational intervention.
resultsOne hundred and seventy-one request forms were included in the first audit and 146 in the second audit. The first audit revealed that all 171 thrombophilia-screen request forms had complete patient demographic information but none had clinical information. Haematological pathologists only made generic comments which could not be applied to a specific patient. The second audit, conducted after a physician educational session, did not reveal any improvement in the clinical information provision by the test-ordering physicians. This was reportedly due to the lack of space on the request form. The interpretive comments therefore remained generic and not patient-specific.
conclusionPhysicians' failure to provide relevant clinical information made it impossible for pathologists to make patient-specific interpretation of the results. A single physician education session did not change the practice, reportedly due to the inappropriate design of the test request form. Further studies are required to investigate the impact of an improved request form and the planned electronic test requesting.
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.