Survey of users' attitudes to their local microbiology laboratory.

Introduction Quality control in clinical microbiology laboratories has tended to focus mainly on the accuracy of results obtained from the processing of specimens.`'3 Providing that external and internal quality control procedures are satisfactory, the laboratory may tend to assume that because the results produced are accurate, the service provided must be a good one. Users of the service, on the other hand, may take the accuracy of results for granted. To them, the conception of the service may be very different and may rely on other factors such as the speed of reporting, general helpfulness of the laboratory, clarity of the printed reports, and so on.' It is likely that only serious, repeated problems would lead to a formal complaint about the laboratory, and many smaller (and perhaps to the laboratory, less important) problems will otherwise go unnoticed. It is unlikely that direct person-toperson discussion would detect all such difficulties; many clinicians would be understandably reluctant to criticise laboratory performance. A less personal (and if desired, anonymous) questionnaire may be more appropriate. We decided, therefore, to send out such a questionnaire to all hospital "users" of the service provided by our laboratory to detect possible problems and difficulties, and to use this to try to improve the service. The Royal Victoria Infirmary (RVI) is a teaching hospital of about 650 beds. It includes the regional centres for renal transplantation, bone marrow transplantation, and paediatric oncology. Administered within the same unit and served by the RVI microbiology laboratory is the Princess Mary Maternity Hospital (60 obstetric beds and 16 special care nursery cots) and Newcastle Dental Hospital. The microbiology laboratory processes some 70 000 specimens annually of which about 5% originate from local general practitioners. The questionnaire was sent to all medical and dental staff in the RVI and associated hospitals served by our laboratory. Names were obtained from the current list of medical and dental staff produced by the hospital personnel department. Care was taken to avoid duplication as many staff (particularly very junior staff) were listed under more than one heading. Questionnaires were not sent to staff in specialities who do not send specimens to the laboratory, such as anaesthetics, biochemistry, and radiology. Respondents were given the option of remaining anonymous if they desired, but to encourage them to give their name and grade a small prize (a bottle of wine) was offered to the first name to be drawn from all those responding by the specified date.