Suppr超能文献

对提交给尼日利亚西北部一家医院血液学和输血科的实验室申请表进行评估。

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

作者信息

Jegede Feyisayo, Mbah Henry A, Dakata Ado, Gwarzo Dalhatu H, Abdulrahman Surajudeen A, Kuliya-Gwarzo Aisha

机构信息

Family Health International 360 (FHI360), Department of Laboratory Services, Abuja, Nigeria.

LabTrail Global, Smyrna, Delaware, United States.

出版信息

Afr J Lab Med. 2016 May 12;5(1):381. doi: 10.4102/ajlm.v5i1.381. eCollection 2016.

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.

摘要

背景

实验室申请表(LRF)是实验室、申请医生和实验室服务使用者之间的沟通纽带。填写LRF过程中信息不足或错误会显著影响实验室结果的质量,并最终影响患者的治疗结果。

目的

我们评估了常规提交的LRF,以确定其正确性、完整性和一致性程度。

方法

对2014年10月至2014年12月期间提交至尼日利亚卡诺阿明努·卡诺教学医院血液学系(DH)和输血服务部(BTS)的LRF进行评估,检查表格上所有项目的填写情况。从患者标识符、检测申请详情、实验室详情和医生详情这四个质量指标领域的表现得出综合百分比。

结果

在评估的2084份LRF中,999份来自DH,1085份来自BTS。总体而言,DH的LRF完整性为89.5%,BTS为81.2%。DH的患者姓名、患者所在位置和实验室编号信息填写完整率为100%,而BTS只有患者姓名填写完整率为100%。BTS表格上医生签名(60.8%)和实验室接收者签名(63.5%)的信息填写不完整情况最为常见。DH的LRF无一符合所有质量指标,BTS的LRF只有9.4%符合所有质量指标。

结论

这两个部门的LRF填写水平未达最佳。这突出表明需要对LRF进行审查和重新设计,改善实验室和临床工作人员之间的培训与沟通,并审查标本拒收做法。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

6
Blood components requests at an orthopedic hospital: a critical survey.一家骨科医院的血液成分需求:一项关键调查。
Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2020 Jan-Mar;42(1):25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.htct.2019.01.001. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
7
Audit and education: Role in safe transfusion practice.审核与教育:在安全输血实践中的作用
Asian J Transfus Sci. 2018 Jul-Dec;12(2):141-145. doi: 10.4103/ajts.AJTS_135_17.
9
The diagnostic-clinical chasm: Work in progress?诊断与临床之间的差距:仍在进展之中?
Afr J Lab Med. 2016 Oct 31;5(1):586. doi: 10.4102/ajlm.v5i1.586. eCollection 2016.

本文引用的文献

3
Harmonization of pre-analytical quality indicators.协调分析前质量指标。
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014 Feb 15;24(1):105-13. doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.012. eCollection 2014.
9
Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality.分析前质量改进:从梦想变为现实。
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011 Jul;49(7):1113-26. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.600. Epub 2011 Apr 25.
10

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验