Assessment of Lab request forms: How do our clinicians communicate with Laboratory?

D. Trivedi
{"title":"Assessment of Lab request forms: How do our clinicians communicate with Laboratory?","authors":"D. Trivedi","doi":"10.18231/j.ijcbr.2022.066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Central clinical laboratory is an important division in the health care setup. Laboratory results help clinical decisions, follow up care and ensure patient safety. Laboratory request Form [LRF] is an important medium between the patient, a treating clinician and Laboratory. A meticulously filled LRF is important for patient care. Providing accurate and complete information in LRF is the doctor's responsibility. Erroneous LRF will have an impact on the quality of laboratory results. Present study evaluates the degree of completeness and correctness of quality indicators on laboratory request forms [LRF] to examine preanalytical standards of laboratory services.This study is a single center, prospective, cross sectional, descriptive type conducted at a 650 bed teaching hospital from Gujarat. In the span of a six months study period, 3735 [20% of total] LRFs were selected by simple random sampling method from the total LRF received at OPD blood collection center. They were analyzed for patient, clinician and sample identifier quality indicators along with completeness and correctness. Qualitative information was converted to quantitative by using two point scale, 0 score for incomplete information and 1 score for complete information.Among patient identifier quality indicators name, age, gender and location were filled in more than 75% forms whereas, very poorly filled 2% provisional diagnosis and 42% MRD number. Clinician identifier quality indicator was attended to in less than 50% forms. Time and date of request were absent on 100% forms. Sample identifier quality indicator shows 97% forms with the nature of the sample and 92% having investigation requests. Test requests on one third forms were invalid and inappropriate. 38% forms were incomplete and inappropriate whereas 46% forms had error in filling one or other data indicators.Appropriately filled LRF communicates well with the Central clinical laboratory. It will help in providing quality reports in time and benefit clinicians to manage quality care for patients. Hand written, poorly legible, inappropriately abbreviated, erroneous LRF are misleading and may compromise laboratory service and patient safety. Training and change in attitude towards LRF writing is required to maintain the standard of the health care system.","PeriodicalId":13899,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Research","volume":"103 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijcbr.2022.066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Central clinical laboratory is an important division in the health care setup. Laboratory results help clinical decisions, follow up care and ensure patient safety. Laboratory request Form [LRF] is an important medium between the patient, a treating clinician and Laboratory. A meticulously filled LRF is important for patient care. Providing accurate and complete information in LRF is the doctor's responsibility. Erroneous LRF will have an impact on the quality of laboratory results. Present study evaluates the degree of completeness and correctness of quality indicators on laboratory request forms [LRF] to examine preanalytical standards of laboratory services.This study is a single center, prospective, cross sectional, descriptive type conducted at a 650 bed teaching hospital from Gujarat. In the span of a six months study period, 3735 [20% of total] LRFs were selected by simple random sampling method from the total LRF received at OPD blood collection center. They were analyzed for patient, clinician and sample identifier quality indicators along with completeness and correctness. Qualitative information was converted to quantitative by using two point scale, 0 score for incomplete information and 1 score for complete information.Among patient identifier quality indicators name, age, gender and location were filled in more than 75% forms whereas, very poorly filled 2% provisional diagnosis and 42% MRD number. Clinician identifier quality indicator was attended to in less than 50% forms. Time and date of request were absent on 100% forms. Sample identifier quality indicator shows 97% forms with the nature of the sample and 92% having investigation requests. Test requests on one third forms were invalid and inappropriate. 38% forms were incomplete and inappropriate whereas 46% forms had error in filling one or other data indicators.Appropriately filled LRF communicates well with the Central clinical laboratory. It will help in providing quality reports in time and benefit clinicians to manage quality care for patients. Hand written, poorly legible, inappropriately abbreviated, erroneous LRF are misleading and may compromise laboratory service and patient safety. Training and change in attitude towards LRF writing is required to maintain the standard of the health care system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实验室申请单的评估:我们的临床医生如何与实验室沟通?
中心检验科是医疗卫生机构的一个重要部门。实验室结果有助于临床决策、后续护理和确保患者安全。检验申请单(LRF)是患者、诊疗医师和实验室之间的重要媒介。精心填充的LRF对患者护理非常重要。在LRF中提供准确和完整的信息是医生的责任。错误的LRF会影响实验室结果的质量。本研究评估了实验室申请单(LRF)质量指标的完整性和正确性,以检查实验室服务的分析前标准。本研究为单中心、前瞻性、横断面、描述性研究,在古吉拉特邦一家拥有650张床位的教学医院进行。在为期6个月的研究期间,采用简单随机抽样的方法从OPD采血中心收到的LRF总数中选择3735例(占总LRF的20%)LRF。分析了患者、临床医生和样本标识符的质量指标以及完整性和正确性。定性信息转化为定量信息,采用两分制,不完整信息0分,完整信息1分。在患者标识符质量指标中,姓名、年龄、性别和位置的填充率超过75%,而临时诊断和MRD编号的填充率非常低,分别为2%和42%。临床医师标识符质量指标被关注的比例不到50%。100%的表格上都没有填写申请的时间和日期。样本标识符质量指标显示97%的表格与样本性质相符,92%的表格有调查要求。三分之一的测试请求是无效和不适当的。38%的表格不完整和不合适,而46%的表格在填写一个或其他数据指标时出现错误。适当填充的LRF与中心临床实验室沟通良好。这将有助于及时提供高质量的报告,并有利于临床医生对患者进行高质量的护理。手写的、难以辨认的、不恰当缩写的、错误的LRF具有误导性,并可能危及实验室服务和患者安全。培训和改变对LRF写作的态度是维持卫生保健系统标准所必需的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Vax effect: Role of global vaccination initiatives in pandemic control and impact in Dehradun during COVID-19 Assessment of serum markers in preeclampsia: A prospective study Elevated foetal haemoglobin in tribal sickle cell anaemic patients: Blessing in disgust? Recent advances in tuberculosis: A comprehensive review of emerging trends in pathogenesis, diagnostics, treatment, and prevention Emerging need of molecular profiling in hepatobiliary cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1