Objectives: To assess the extent of Blood Request Forms (BRFs) usage in routine blood banking, at a major Hospital in Lahore. Study Design: Cross-sectional Descriptive study. Setting: Shaikh Zayed Medical Complex Blood Bank, Lahore. Period: 6 months (Sept 2016 to March 2017). Material & Methods: A total of 1052 BRFs dispatched from in-patient of Shaikh Zayed Medical Complex, Lahore were selected. Patient’s MR number, date, demographic information, diagnosis, ward, history of transfusions, type of blood transfused, phlebotomist’s name etc., were analyzed. They were assessed and the results were produced in tabulated form as well as in graph. Results: Among the 1052 BRFs, “MR number” was filled in 99.4% (n=1046) forms, while 0.6% (n=6) were not filled. The column of “Date” was filled in 97% (n=1020) forms, while it was left blank in 3% (n=32) forms. Similarly, the column of “Age” was filled in 97.7% (n=1028) forms, whereas it was left empty in 2.3% (n=24) forms. Demographic information like “Patient’s Name” and “Gender” were filled in 100% forms. “Ward” was filled in 97.1% (n=1022) forms, while 2.9% (n=30) were unfilled. As far as “H/O previous transfusion(s)” column is concerned, 40.9% (n=430) forms were filled and 59.1% (n=622) were left unfilled. “H/O previous transfusion reaction(s)” column had almost the similar number with 37.6% (n=396) filled and 62.4% (n=656) left empty. The column of “Diagnosis” was filled in 22.4% (n=236) and was found unfilled in 77.6% (n=816). Moreover, the column of “Which type of component transfused” was filled in 96% (n=1010), while 4% (n=42) were unfilled. The column of “Amount of blood needed” was filled in 96.4% (n=1014) forms, while 3.6% (n=38) forms were unfilled. “When is the blood needed” column had only 29.3% (n=308) filled forms, whereas 70.7% (n=744) forms did not mention when the blood was needed. One of the most important columns is “Patient’s blood group”, which was filled in only 53.4% (n=562) forms, while 46.6% (n=490) forms were left empty. The column of “Name of phlebotomist” was filled in only 13.9% (n=146), while 86.1% (n=906) of the forms were found unfilled in this column. In total, our study revealed that among 1052 BRFs, only 6.8% (n=72) werecompletely filled, while 93.2% (n=980) were incompletely filled. Conclusion: Lack of awareness in BRF filling should be properly addressed to enhance efficiency and to reduce pre-analytical errors in healthcare setups. It is of utmost need that the clinicians and nurses should be made aware that BRFs play a pivotal role in smooth and error-free functioning of the healthcare setups.

Background: Mucin 1 (MUC1) is overexpressed in almost 90% of CA breast cases and is usually associated with poor prognosis. On the other hand, HER2 is profoundly expressed in breast carcinoma and is also linked with increased disease recurrence, tumor invasion and poor prognosis. Thus, this study was designed to assess the expression of MUC1 and HER2 against the histological grades of breast carcinoma in our population. Materials and methods: It was a cross sectional analytical study conducted at Post Graduate Medical Institute/General Surgery Departments of Lahore General Hospital (LGH), Lahore. Duration of study was 12 month from 27-3-2018 to 30-3-2019. Total 60 newly diagnosed cases of CA breast were included in the study. Immunohistochemistry technique was used and MUC1 and HER2 markers were applied to check the probable association between the two markers and the histological grades of cancer. Results: A total of 60 cases were included in the study, out of which 96.7% (n=58) were invasive ductal carcinoma, while 3.3% (n=2) were Invasive lobular carcinoma. Among the total, 60% (n=36) were found positive for MUC1 (moderate/strong) and 40% (n=24) were found negative (negative/weak). Regarding HER2, 26.7% (n=16) were strong positive, 20% (n=12) were at the borderline/equivocal and 53.3% (n=32) were found negative for HER 2. Conclusion: Statistically significant association was found between MUC1 and HER2 against the histological grades of breast cancer patients (p <0.05).

Four hundred and fifty-three SARS CoV-2 antibodies tests were conducted using Roche Elecsys® Anti SARS CoV-2 kits (detecting total antibodies) between June 13 to July 8, 2020 (25 days) on Cobas® e411 automatic analyser, based on electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) principle. Samples were collected from walk-in patients at our facility. Among them, 2 (0.4%) were found equivocal, 289 (63.8%) were found reactive, while 162 (35.8%) were found non-reactive. Moreover, reactive (symptomatic) cases were 262 (57.8%), reactive (asymptomatic) were 27 (6.0%), non-reactive (symptomatic) were 34 (7.5%), while non-reactive (asymptomatic) were 128 (28.3%). Most common symptom was fever, found in 262 (87.9%) individuals, followed by dry cough 146 (49.0%). Most number of reactive cases, i.e. 110 (42.6%) were those who got themselves tested between 15-21 days after onset of first symptom.