Critical laboratory test result management practice and associated factors at selected public health facilities of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2025-06-01
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Addis Ababa University
Abstract
Background: Critical Result Is a Result That Requires Immediate Medical Attention and Action Because It Indicate a High Risk of Imminent Death or Major Patient Harm. In Ethiopian Public Hospitals Where High Patient Volume, Limited Resources and Varying Infrastructure Exists Managing This Result Makes More Difficult. Besides, There Is Very Limited Research Information in This Regard. Thus, This Study Aimed to Assess the Management Practice of Critical Results and Its Associated Factors at Selected Hospitals.
Methods: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study Was Conducted Across Four Public Hospitals Found in Addis Ababa, Using Both Quantitative and Qualitative Aspects, Different Data Collection Tools Are Used Like Staff Questionnaire, Document Review and Key Informant Interview Then Entered in to Microsoft Excel for Accuracy. Analysis Was Performed Using SPSS Version 23. Result: We Assessed Critical Laboratory Result Management Practice Across Four Public Hospitals, Among Laboratory Staff Respondents 96.6% Were Laboratory Technologists with Varying Years of Experience. 95.7% Reported No Training in Critical Result Management. Among The 422 Critical Results 46.6% Were Hematological Tests Followed by Carbohydrate (13.7%), Liver Function (11.8%), Electrolytes (10.19%), Renal Function Test (9.7%), Cardiac Marker 4.2% And Coagulation Tests (3.56%) From The 422 Critical Results Only 34(8.1%) Recognized and Managed as Critical Results, 38.6% Communicated in the Given Time Interval. St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College (SPHMMC) Achieved A 93% Rate of Timely Communication, While Yekatit 12 Hospital Managed Only 4%. Communication Of Laboratory Results Was Mainly with Electronic Health Record (EHR) And Most of the Critical Results Were Communicated with Electronic Health Record Like Every Other (Non-Critical) Test (91.9%), Which Makes Only 34(8.1%) Of the Results Communicated as Critical Results, The Communication Methods Used Inconsistently, Methods Were In-Person/Verbal, Phone Call, And Paper-Based Methods Are Used. And Only 17.6% Of the Tests Are Confirmed in Readback. There Was 0% Of Documentation of Critical Results in All Hospitals. Although Standard Operating Procedures (Sops) Existed, Stakeholders Were Not Involved in the Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures. Most Of the Staffs Reported High Workload and Resource Limitation as a Major Factor for Poor Critical Result Management. Physicians Expressed Dissatisfaction with the Current Practice 90%, By Stating the Consequence of Poor Management in Increasing Hospital Stay and Delayed Treatment, Emphasizing the Need for Faster Communication, Standardized Protocols and Improved Documentation for Better Patient Treatment.
Conclusion: There Is a Significant Gap in Management of Critical Results, The Findings Indicate the Urgent Need for Standardize Protocol, Enhancing Training, And Improved Communication Systems to Ensure Effective and Prompt Management of Critical Results in Hospital Settings.
Description
Keywords
Critical laboratory values, Patient safety, Communication in healthcare, Turnaround time, Accreditation, readback policy, stakeholder involvement.