<p>Factors Affecting Quality of Laboratory Result During Ordering, Handling, and Testing of the Patient’s Specimen at Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Science Comprehensive Specialized Hospital</p>

Abstract

Background: The increase of medical laboratory test errors represents the increase of all defects within the process. An error can be any defect during the entire process, from ordering to reporting. It may have negative effects on patient care, by contributing to inappropriate treatment, an increase in lengths of hospital stay, and dissatisfaction with healthcare services. Therefore, this study aimed to determine factors affecting the quality of laboratory results through the entire process. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Hawassa University hospital from October 2018 to May 2019. Data were collected by using structured questionnaires and checklist and entered and analyzed using SPSS version 21. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 455 individuals participated in this study. During the actual observational assessment, 72.5% of laboratory professionals identify their patients correctly and 62.5% of them label the sample before collection. In multivariate logistic regression, labeling of sample before collection (AOR=1.357, 95% CI=1.09, 1.58, P-0.017), use of unmixed (AOR=4.364, 95% CI=1.950, 20.036, P-0.049) and hemolyzed blood for testing (AOR=1.403, 95% CI=1.096, 1.692 P-0.021) were associated with laboratory test errors. The clinical service providers who requested the test believed, lack of efficient laboratory service (P=0.005), unable to use manuals (P=0.025), and incorrect interpretation of reference booklets were associated with laboratory errors. Patient residence and frequency of first and second visits of the hospital were statistically associated with laboratory errors. Conclusion: The occurrence of laboratory errors in our study was demonstrated by the distribution pattern, the preanalytical, analytical, and post-analytical steps. But changes have occurred in the types and frequencies of errors in these phases of testing by laboratory professionals, clinicians, and patients in the current study. Therefore, the hospital administrations, laboratory professionals and clinicians should work harder and closer to solve the identified problems.

Determinants of microalbuminuria among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Kuala Selangor district: A cross-sectional study

“…The effect of the staff factor, techniques on variability, and reliability of test results has been demonstrated in other studies. 39 , 40 Finally, hypertension, IHD, CVA, PVD, and smoking status were not significantly associated with MA in our study; however the results should be interpretated with caution due to the small sample size of each subgroup.…”

Magnitude of extra-analytical errors and associated factors in medical laboratories in thirteen Public Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

“…Ninety (53.3%) of the 169 laboratory professionals surveyed did not submit results within the TAT due to workload (90%) and a lack of wards/locations (10%), respectively. In contrast, research in Hawassa 29 and Addis Ababa 2 discovered that 32.9% and 80% of study data, respectively, were not released within the predetermined TAT. This discrepancy could be due to differences in the study’s organizational structure, workload, sample size, and workflow approach.…”

The Impact of Laboratory Quality Management System Implementation on Quality Laboratory Service Delivery in Health Center Laboratories of Oromia Region, Ethiopia

“…18 However, the above result was not consistent with the study conducted in Hawassa, which did not reveal a statistically significant association with laboratory quality outcome. 24 The variation might be the type and size of the sample, sampling technique, and method of data collection in which interview of laboratory professionals and record review was used in Hawassa in contrast to this study in which data was retrospectively extracted only by document and record reviews.…”

“…However, this study is not supported by the studies conducted in Hawassa and Addis Ababa in which equipment maintenance and calibration were not seen as significant in association with laboratory quality service. 19,24 The possible causes of variation might be due to the difference in the LQMS implementation program, which was not stated in the study conducted in Hawassa. Method of data collection and the difference in the level of health facilities included in the study might be other factors that contributed to the variation.…”