ArticleThe Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society2025
A survey of doctors' perspectives on critical laboratory result communication in Cape Town, South Africa.
Article in The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society, 2025. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Critical laboratory results indicate that a patient is in imminent danger without timely intervention, and prompt communication can improve patient safety. Our laboratory has been trialling different methods of communication to improve our service, including the patient referral application Vula. Objectives: To evaluate clinicians' perceptions of critical laboratory results reported by the Tygerberg Hospital Chemical Pathology Laboratory in South Africa (SA) at various levels of care to identify current challenges, areas for improvement, and preferred communication methods. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was utilised to explore medical professionals' perceptions at different levels of health facilities within Cape Town, SA. The electronic survey targeted clinicians employed at the study sites and excluded auxiliary healthcare staff and was distributed from 10 September 2024 to 31 December 2024. The survey collected data on participants' demographics, experiences, preferences, and expectations regarding critical result communication methods. Results: A total of 76 responses were obtained; 2 were incomplete and excluded. Over half of the respondents had at least 4 years of clinical experience across various disciplines. The majority (n=71, 95.9%) found the communication of critical results to impact patient care. Direct phone calls were favoured by 45.9% (n=34), whereas 44.6% (n=33) preferred mobile methods such as short message service (SMS) or WhatsApp. Conclusion: This study provides insights into clinicians' perceptions of critical laboratory result reporting in healthcare facilities in Cape Town. The findings will help enhance communication practices and develop a standard operating procedure for the Tygerberg Hospital Chemical Pathology Laboratory. Contribution of the study: This study provides insights into clinicians' perspectives of critical laboratory result reporting from different levels of care within Cape Town, South Africa. It highlights both the value of existing communication practices and the areas that require improvement. The findings will support the development of standardised communication strategies aimed at enhancing patient care.
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.