Search

Introduction: laboratory request forms (LRF) is a means of communication between the biologist and the clinician. In Niger, to our knowledge, no study focused on the editorial quality of LRF. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the editorial quality and cost of non-compliant LRF in four main hospitals in Niamey and the representation of the CERBA laboratory in Niger. Methods: we conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional, descriptive study over a period of eight months. All LRFs sent to selected laboratories over the study period were included in this study. Results: a total of 5.651 LRFs from 30 different clinical departments were included in this study. The most reported information in the LRFs was: the patient's last name (99.79%), first name (99.65%) and date of prescription (97.45%). On the other hand, the sample date, time, and nature were reported in 0.02%, 0.21%, and 1.68% of the LRFs respectively. Overall, 9.45% of the LRFs complied with the principles of good prescribing. While the bivariate analysis showed that doctors had a tendency to prescribe better than other health workers, multivariate analysis showed that the risk of non-compliance of LRFs was not associated with the prescriber's qualification, the requesting service, and the testing cost. Conclusion: the editorial quality of LRFs is very low in the health structures evaluated. These results highlight the need for effective communication between the physicians and the biologists and a rigorous attitude of laboratory staff regarding the management of non-conformities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]