ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2020
Factors Affecting Quality of Laboratory Result During Ordering, Handling, and Testing of the Patient's Specimen at Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Science Comprehensive Specialized Hospital.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of quality laboratory service provision amongst government comprehensive specialized hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Current Scenarios and Future Perspectives of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in India: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Are accreditation standards fit for measurement uncertainty in clinical laboratories? An analysis of Saudi Arabia's accreditation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of specimen rejection rates in the preanalytical phase and nurses' experiences: a mixed design study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Correlation of serum screening and neuroimaging studies: A comparative analysis for diagnostic evaluation of neurocysticercosis among people with epilepsy attending mental health clinics in selected district hospitals of Tanzania.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- A pilot study of non-invasive diagnostic tools to detect Helicobacter pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Designing a minimum data set of laboratory data for the electronic summary sheet of pediatric ward in Iran: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Taking a step back from testing: Preanalytical considerations in molecular infectious disease diagnostics.Clinical biochemistry · 2023Review
- Magnitude of extra-analytical errors and associated factors in medical laboratories in thirteen Public Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.SAGE open medicine · 2023Article
- Determinants of microalbuminuria among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Kuala Selangor district: A cross-sectional study.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2022Article
- Pink eye outbreak in rural Borneo schools: The panic and the prompt public health response.Journal of family & community medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increase of medical laboratory test errors represents the increase of all defects within the process. An error can be any defect during the entire process, from ordering to reporting. It may have negative effects on patient care, by contributing to inappropriate treatment, an increase in lengths of hospital stay, and dissatisfaction with healthcare services. Therefore, this study aimed to determine factors affecting the quality of laboratory results through the entire process.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at Hawassa University hospital from October 2018 to May 2019. Data were collected by using structured questionnaires and checklist and entered and analyzed using SPSS version 21. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 455 individuals participated in this study. During the actual observational assessment, 72.5% of laboratory professionals identify their patients correctly and 62.5% of them label the sample before collection. In multivariate logistic regression, labeling of sample before collection (AOR=1.357, 95% CI=1.09, 1.58, P- 0.017), use of unmixed (AOR=4.364, 95% CI=1.950, 20.036, P- 0.049) and hemolyzed blood for testing (AOR=1.403, 95% CI=1.096, 1.692 P- 0.021) were associated with laboratory test errors. The clinical service providers who requested the test believed, lack of efficient laboratory service (P=0.005), unable to use manuals (P=0.025), and incorrect interpretation of reference booklets were associated with laboratory errors. Patient residence and frequency of first and second visits of the hospital were statistically associated with laboratory errors.
conclusionThe occurrence of laboratory errors in our study was demonstrated by the distribution pattern, the preanalytical, analytical, and post-analytical steps. But changes have occurred in the types and frequencies of errors in these phases of testing by laboratory professionals, clinicians, and patients in the current study. Therefore, the hospital administrations, laboratory professionals and clinicians should work harder and closer to solve the identified problems.
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.