Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 17 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYCureus

Evaluation of Pre-analytical Errors in the Histopathology Laboratory at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kenya.

  1. 1Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, KEN.
  2. 2Centre for Virus Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, KEN.
  3. 3Department of Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute Graduate School, Nairobi, KEN.

Abstract

Background

Pre-analytical errors comprise inappropriate performance and procedures executed before sample analysis. These nonconformities compromise report quality, consequently impeding optimal patient management and clinical outcomes. Awareness of these errors within histopathology laboratories is crucial for maintaining diagnostic integrity.Objective

This study aimed to characterize the frequency, nature, and distribution of documented demographic, accessioning, and specimen-rejection errors recorded in the Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) histology laboratory registers between December 2017 and December 2019.Methodology

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted reviewing data from the general laboratory register and the sample rejection register recorded between December 2017 and December 2019. Assessment focused on two major domains: demographic/accessioning errors and sample rejection criteria. Analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 20 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).Results

A total of 757 missing patient information records were recorded during the study period. Missing patient age was the most prevalent demographic error among the missing data events, accounting for 52.2% (24/46) in December 2017, 58.6% (286/488) in 2018, 57.4% (128/223) in 2019, and overall 57.9% (438/757). Within the sample rejection category, a missing request form was the most frequently specified reason for rejection (16.0%; 8/50 in December 2017, 40.0%; 2/5 in 2018, and 60.0%; 3/5 in 2019) and overall, 21.7% (13/60). Crucially, in December 2017, 66.0% (33/50) of the samples were rejected without documentation of the specific reason for rejection.Conclusion

Requisition forms were systematically underfilled, with missing patient age representing the predominant demographic discrepancy. Missing requisition forms reported with the highest frequency in this study were strongly associated with sample rejection. Furthermore, a severe lack of structured documentation regarding the reasons for specimen rejection was identified.

Related

  1. Quantifying Reproducibility of Common Laboratory Tests in a Tertiary Care Hospital for More Realistic Synthetic Data in Machine Learning
    D. Dean
    medRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textEpidemiology & public healthmedRxiv
  2. Evaluation of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Vancomycin with Ratio of Area Under the Curve to Minimum Inhibitory Concentration at a Children’s and Women’s Tertiary Hospital
    Alyssa Azote, Roxane Carr, Kaitlin McDougal +2
    The Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacyPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textPharmacology & toxicologyPMC
  3. Laboratory-based surveillance of antimicrobial non-susceptibility in Enterobacter species over 12 years at a tertiary-care hospital in Saudi Arabia
    Yahya Shabi, Fatimah Mohmmed Ali Asiri, Khalifa Binkhamis +12
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textImmunologyMicrobiologyPLOS
  4. Evaluation of a mobile surgical air decontamination device in reducing airborne microbial load in the operating theatre of a tertiary care hospital.
    Naseeruddin Mohammed, Santosh Karade, Mohammed Ashraf Ali Namaji +2
    Infection prevention in practicePeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Clinical-Epidemiological, Trichoscopic, and Light Microscopic Evaluation of Pediatric Hair and Scalp Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study from a Tertiary Care Hospital.
    Taiba Trumboo, Yasmeen Jabeen Bhat, Obeid Shafi +3
    Dermatology practical & conceptualPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
BibTeX
@article{rioki2026evaluation,
  title = {{Evaluation of Pre-analytical Errors in the Histopathology Laboratory at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kenya.}},
  author = {Josephine N Rioki and Rency Lel and Allan T Kirrima and Mwangi Joseph},
  journal = {Cureus},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.7759/cureus.116635},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42909853},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Evaluation of Pre-analytical Errors in the Histopathology Laboratory at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kenya.
AU  - Josephine N Rioki
AU  - Rency Lel
AU  - Allan T Kirrima
AU  - Mwangi Joseph
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/21
JO  - Cureus
DO  - 10.7759/cureus.116635
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42909853
AB  - Background  Pre-analytical errors comprise inappropriate performance and procedures executed before sample analysis. These nonconformities compromise report quality, consequently impeding optimal patient management and clinical outcomes. Awareness of these errors within histopathology laboratories is crucial for maintaining diagnostic integrity.Objective  This study aimed to characterize the frequency, nature, and distribution of documented demographic, accessioning, and specimen-rejection errors recorded in the Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) histology laboratory registers between December 2017 and December 2019.Methodology  A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted reviewing data from the general laboratory register and the sample rejection register recorded between December 2017 and December 2019. Assessment focused on two major domains: demographic/accessioning errors and sample rejection criteria. Analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 20 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).Results  A total of 757 missing patient information records were recorded during the study period. Missing patient age was the most prevalent demographic error among the missing data events, accounting for 52.2% (24/46) in December 2017, 58.6% (286/488) in 2018, 57.4% (128/223) in 2019, and overall 57.9% (438/757). Within the sample rejection category, a missing request form was the most frequently specified reason for rejection (16.0%; 8/50 in December 2017, 40.0%; 2/5 in 2018, and 60.0%; 3/5 in 2019) and overall, 21.7% (13/60). Crucially, in December 2017, 66.0% (33/50) of the samples were rejected without documentation of the specific reason for rejection.Conclusion  Requisition forms were systematically underfilled, with missing patient age representing the predominant demographic discrepancy. Missing requisition forms reported with the highest frequency in this study were strongly associated with sample rejection. Furthermore, a severe lack of structured documentation regarding the reasons for specimen rejection was identified.
SN  - 2168-8184
ER  -