• Users Online: 155
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 676-679

Evaluation of completeness of hematology requisition forms leading preanalytical errors in laboratory of a tertiary care teaching hospital


1 Department of Pathology, Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Community Medicine, Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Varun Vijay Gaiki
Department of Community Medicine, Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad - 500 087, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_304_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Laboratory services provide crucial information for the optimal management of patients in a hospital setting. A crucial step in the preanalytical phase of sample testing is the correct filling up of the laboratory requisition form (LRF). Objectives: this study as planned to identify the possible parameters for pre analytical errors. Methodology: We analyzed the LRF submitted to the Hematology Section of Central Laboratory of a tertiary care teaching hospital from Hyderabad to assess the degree of completeness of the submitted LRF as a cause of preanalytical error in the laboratory workflow. Randomly selected laboratory forms submitted along with specimens to the Central Hematology Laboratory of a tertiary hospital over a period of 1 month for their completeness, as laid down in standard operating procedures. Collected data were entered in an Microsoft Excel Worksheet and analyzed by SPSS version 23. Only the patient's name, identification number, gender, type of sample, and examination requested were correctly filled. Results: Patient contact details were available only in 0.82% of LRFs. The diagnosis and clinical history were correctly filled in only 39.62% and 0.27% LRFs, respectively. There was a significant lack of information regarding the doctor requesting the investigation (doctor's name written in 8.47% of forms and doctor's contact telephone number written in 0.27% of forms evaluated). It was also found that the present format of the LRF was inadequate for providing the necessary details of the samples received. Conclusion: The existing LRF needs to be re-designed to enable the clinicians to provide more clinical details and patient-related details. Clinicians need to be sensitized regarding the necessity of submitting correctly filled LRFs. The use of system generated online requisition forms can also be done, where forms cannot be submitted unless complete.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed192    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal