Imoh Lucius Chidiebere, Onyenekwu Chinelo Pamela, Inaku Kenneth Ogar, Abu Alexander Oghielu, Tagbo Chibuzo David, Mohammed Idris Yahaya, Kuti Modupe Akinrele
Department of Chemical Pathology, University of Jos and Jos University Teaching Hospital, Plateau State, Nigeria.
Department of Chemical Pathology, Ben Carson Snr School of Medicine, Babcock University and Babcock University Teaching Hospital, Ogun State, Nigeria.
EJIFCC. 2021 Feb 28;32(1):85-97. eCollection 2021 Feb.
Interpretative commenting (IC) and reflective testing have recently generated interest because of their potential for adding value to Clinical laboratory testing. Physicians' perception to this post-testing service in Nigeria is unknown. This study examined the practices and physician's disposition regarding IC and reflective testing.
This cross-sectional study was conducted among 232 doctors working in public and private hospitals across eight purposively selected states in Nigeria. Doctors who have worked and/or currently working in a health facility within their state of residence and who consented to participating in this survey were given a structured questionnaire to fill and return.
Paper-based reporting (213; 91.8%) was the most commonly practiced reporting method. One hundred and thirty-three (57.4%) doctors responded that interpretative comments were added to laboratory reports. "Free-handed text" (85/133; 63.9%) was the most commonly practiced form of IC; 184/232 (79.3%) and 166/232 (71.6%) doctors respectively considered comments on "potential implication of results" and "suggestions on further investigation" as the most "helpful" aspect of IC. Also, 192/232 (82.7%) doctors strongly agreed/agreed that IC influences patient's management. Only 125 (53.7%) doctors responded that they welcomed reflective testing. Concerns about cost implications (68/107;63.6%) and delays in release of result (48/107; 44.9%) were among reasons for not supporting reflective testing.
Nigerian doctors generally have a positive disposition towards addition of interpretative comments but less so concerning reflective testing. However, challenges such as lack of LIS, EQA schemes for IC and gaps in physicians' education should be addressed to improve this aspect of laboratory services in Nigeria.
解释性注释（IC）和反思性检验因其有可能为临床实验室检测增添价值，近来引发了关注。在尼日利亚，医生对这项检测后服务的看法尚不清楚。本研究调查了关于IC和反思性检验的实践情况以及医生的态度。
本横断面研究在尼日利亚八个经目的抽样选定的州的公立和私立医院工作的232名医生中进行。在其居住州内的医疗机构工作过和/或目前正在工作且同意参与本调查的医生，会收到一份结构化问卷并要求填写后返还。
基于纸质的报告方式（213份；91.8%）是最常用的报告方法。133名（57.4%）医生表示实验室报告中添加了解释性注释。“手写文本”（85/133；63.9%）是最常用的IC形式；184/232（79.3%）和166/232（71.6%）的医生分别认为关于“结果的潜在影响”和“进一步检查的建议”的注释是IC最“有用”的方面。此外，192/232（82.7%）的医生强烈同意/同意IC会影响患者的管理。只有125名（53.7%）医生表示他们欢迎反思性检验。对成本影响的担忧（68/107；63.6%）和结果发布延迟（48/107；44.9%）是不支持反思性检验的原因。
尼日利亚医生总体上对添加解释性注释持积极态度，但对反思性检验的态度则没那么积极。然而，应解决诸如缺乏实验室信息系统、IC的室间质量评价计划以及医生教育方面的差距等挑战，以改善尼日利亚实验室服务的这一方面。
