Multicenter Survey of Physicians' Perception of Interpretative Commenting and Reflective Testing in Nigeria

Interpretative commenting (IC) and reflective testing have recently generated interest because of their potential for adding value to Clinical laboratory testing. Physicians' perception to this post-testing service in Nigeria is unknown. This study examined the practices and physician's disposition regarding IC and reflective testing.

This cross-sectional study was conducted among 232 doctors working in public and private hospitals across eight purposively selected states in Nigeria. Doctors who have worked and/or currently working in a health facility within their state of residence and who consented to participating in this survey were given a structured questionnaire to fill and return.

Paper-based reporting (213; 91.8%) was the most commonly practiced reporting method. One hundred and thirty-three (57.4%) doctors responded that interpretative comments were added to laboratory reports. "Free-handed text" (85/133; 63.9%) was the most commonly practiced form of IC; 184/232 (79.3%) and 166/232 (71.6%) doctors respectively considered comments on "potential implication of results" and "suggestions on further investigation" as the most "helpful" aspect of IC. Also, 192/232 (82.7%) doctors strongly agreed/agreed that IC influences patient's management. Only 125 (53.7%) doctors responded that they welcomed reflective testing. Concerns about cost implications (68/107;63.6%) and delays in release of result (48/107; 44.9%) were among reasons for not supporting reflective testing.

Nigerian doctors generally have a positive disposition towards addition of interpretative comments but less so concerning reflective testing. However, challenges such as lack of LIS, EQA schemes for IC and gaps in physicians' education should be addressed to improve this aspect of laboratory services in Nigeria.