Aim: High-risk laboratory results, known as “Critical or panic laboratory value”, is an indicator of a lifethreatening condition. The test results of critical laboratory value levels that are not determined and communicated by clinicians prevent early diagnosis and treatment, and thus bring great risks. The aim of this study was to investigate and improve the efficiency of critical laboratory value communication between clinic and laboratory.

Materials and Methods: This study was applied on 60 specialist doctors and 56 resident doctors in the form of a questionnaire consisting of 10 questions about critical laboratory values.

Results: The ratio of doctors thinking that ‘critical laboratory value reporting’ contributed to diagnosis was found to be 71.0%. Critical laboratory value reporting was found to be insufficient and sufficient by doctors at 55.0% and 42.0%, respectively. Specialists answered “no” in the ratio of 68.0% when they were asked, “Did the laboratory give feedback for all the results that were considered as critical laboratory value?” Notification of critical laboratory values in hospital information system (HIS) was found insufficient by 72.0% and 83.0% stated that they learned critical laboratory values from HIS. The nurses and auxiliary staff were found to have a role of 9.0% in critical laboratory value notification.

Conclusion: Each hospital should make operation and parameter adjustments about critical laboratory value reporting in the clinical base according to their own conditions.