| 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
Ramanan Duraiswami1, Varun Vijay Gaiki2
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
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_304_20
|
|
|
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]* |
|
 |
|
