Evaluating laboratory request forms submitted to haematology and blood transfusion departments at a hospital in Northwest Nigeria

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveWe assessed routinely-submitted LRFs to determine the degree of correctness, completeness and consistency.MethodsLRFs 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Evaluation of the Completeness in the Filling of Laboratory Request Forms Submitted to the Haematology Laboratory at a Tertiary Hospital in Kenya

“…There were only 1.0% (3/289) of the evaluated request forms with all the required information and the rest had one or more of the parameters missing. This result is similar to the finding by Oyedeji et al [9] and Oyelekan et al [10] [12] reported a similar finding. The time of collection of the specimen was indicated in 84.1% of the forms and this was higher than the findings reported in studies by Adekoge et al [13], Makubi et al [8], Oyelekan et al [10] and Olayemi & Asiamah-Broni [11] where the parameter was recorded in 10.3%, 1.5%, 0.7% and 0.0% of the request forms respectively.…”

“…In terms of clinical information, the diagnosis was filled in 85.8% of the request forms and this finding compares with the that by Nutt et al [16] of 80.9% but higher than the result by Makubi et al [8] of 37.9%. The clinical history was indicated in 14.9% of the forms and it is lower than the one reported by Makubi et al [8] Clinician's name and sign were available in 96.9% and 96.5% of the evaluated forms respectively and this finding is similar to that from studies by Oyelekan et al [10] and Jegede et al [12] where both the parameters were present in 93.8%…”

Errors in the total testing process in the clinical chemistry laboratory at the University of Gondar Hospital, northwest Ethiopia

“…Moreover, 40.1% of the request forms observed did not state the date of sampling. This was comparable to results obtained in a similar study conducted in Ghana (37.3%) ( 21 ), but, higher than results obtained in Nigeria (0.5%) ( 23 ). This variation could be attributed to the workload on physicians, attitudinal difference and negligence among physicians, lack of monitoring by the concerned body or improper orientation about the impact of incomplete test request form on the quality of patient care.…”

Compliance of hand written transfusion requisition form and improvement after online request - a clinical audit

“…7 Another study compared the requests generated by the Department of Haematology (DH) and Blood Transfusion Services (BTS) of Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria. 8 Overall, component request form completeness was 89.5% for DH and 81.2% for BTS. The level of completeness of both forms were suboptimal and there was a need to re-design the request form according to international guidelines and to review specimen rejection practices.…”