Background: The inadequacy in the completeness of the Laboratory Request Form (LRF) has been reported as one of the major sources of errors during the pre-analytical step of laboratory analysis. To prevent the occurre...Background: The inadequacy in the completeness of the Laboratory Request Form (LRF) has been reported as one of the major sources of errors during the pre-analytical step of laboratory analysis. To prevent the occurrence of such errors, this study aimed at assessing the level of completeness of LRFs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of laboratory request forms was conducted at the Clinical Biology Laboratory of the Kinshasa University Clinic, DR Congo, between November 2021 to May 2022. The LRFs were evaluated according to the completeness of all sections including administrative data of the patient, data of physician who ordered the test, relevant patient’s clinical data and data of the biological sample. Results: From a total of 2842 LRFs evaluated, none was fully completed with all required information. Particularly, patient’s clinical data including the medical history, provisional diagnosis and current treatment, were the most absent in 99% LRFs. However, two sections related to patient’s ID and prescribed test were informed in 100% LRFs. Conclusion: The results of this preanalytical audit can serve as an improvement opportunity focused on strengthening awareness about complete filling of LRF.展开更多
文摘Background: The inadequacy in the completeness of the Laboratory Request Form (LRF) has been reported as one of the major sources of errors during the pre-analytical step of laboratory analysis. To prevent the occurrence of such errors, this study aimed at assessing the level of completeness of LRFs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of laboratory request forms was conducted at the Clinical Biology Laboratory of the Kinshasa University Clinic, DR Congo, between November 2021 to May 2022. The LRFs were evaluated according to the completeness of all sections including administrative data of the patient, data of physician who ordered the test, relevant patient’s clinical data and data of the biological sample. Results: From a total of 2842 LRFs evaluated, none was fully completed with all required information. Particularly, patient’s clinical data including the medical history, provisional diagnosis and current treatment, were the most absent in 99% LRFs. However, two sections related to patient’s ID and prescribed test were informed in 100% LRFs. Conclusion: The results of this preanalytical audit can serve as an improvement opportunity focused on strengthening awareness about complete filling of LRF.
