Original Research

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
African Journal of Laboratory Medicine | Vol 5, No 1 | a381 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/ajlm.v5i1.381 | © 2016 Feyisayo Jegede, Henry A. Mbah, Ado Dakata, Dalhatu H. Gwarzo, Surajudeen A. Abdulrahman, Aisha Kuliya-Gwarzo | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 20 October 2015 | Published: 12 May 2016

About the author(s)

Feyisayo Jegede, Family Health International 360 (FHI360), Department of Laboratory Services, Abuja, Nigeria
Henry A. Mbah, LabTrail Global, Smyrna, Delaware, United States
Ado Dakata, Department of Haematology, Bayero University/Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria
Dalhatu H. Gwarzo, Department of Haematology, Bayero University/Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria
Surajudeen A. Abdulrahman, Family Health International 360 (FHI360), Department of Laboratory Services, Abuja, Nigeria
Aisha Kuliya-Gwarzo, Department of Haematology, Bayero University/Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria

Abstract

Background: The 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.

Objective: We assessed routinely-submitted LRFs to determine the degree of correctness, completeness and consistency.

Methods: LRFs 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.

Results: Of 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.

Conclusion: The 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.


Keywords

Evaluation; Laboratory Request Forms; Nigeria

Metrics

Total abstract views: 6716
Total article views: 11627

 

Crossref Citations

1. Magnitude of extra-analytical errors and associated factors in medical laboratories in thirteen Public Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Cheru Degfe, Ousman Mohammed
SAGE Open Medicine  vol: 11  year: 2023  
doi: 10.1177/20503121221148062