Introduction: The Pathological Anatomy laboratory presents risks related to the handling of potentially contaminated surgical, biopsy or cytological samples, as well as the use of dangerous chemicals. The objective of our study is to evaluate the biological and chemical risks incurred by the staff of the PCR laboratory of the Ibn Rochd university hospital center (CHU) in Casablanca and to recommend prevention and protection measures against these risks. Methods: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study over a period of six months, involving all laboratory staff. Our study is based on the use of detailed questionnaires, interviews and observations of working conditions. Results: The evaluation revealed several failures: insufficient training of staff in matters of hygiene and safety in the workplace, medical monitoring is not systematically respected, accidents linked to exposure to biological liquids and products chemicals are relatively common, a lack of maintenance of collective protective equipment such as extractor hoods, a lack of protective glasses and compliant respiratory masks, inappropriate storage of dangerous chemicals, lack of display of certain instructions safety and insufficient compliance with waste disposal requirements. Conclusion: It is imperative to put in place an action plan aimed at preventing and protecting laboratory personnel against these risks.

Introduction: The search for quality must be the essential and constant preoccupation of the laboratory staff who must organise themselves to evaluate not only the reliability of the results, but also the satisfaction of the clients. The satisfaction survey is one of the main tools for this type of evaluation, as recommended by the quality standards. Objectives: To measure the level of satisfaction of its customers and to define areas for improvement. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, descriptive survey conducted among 200 patients admitted to the laboratory and 60 prescribing physicians of the clinical services of the Ibn Rochd University Hospital, over a period of 3 months. Similarly, interviews were conducted with the Pathologists to determine their expectations of the clinical services. Results: The satisfaction score for reception was 67% and for communication 65.8%. The satisfaction score for the response time for results was 34%. And the overall patient satisfaction score was 66%. The results for prescribers show that the satisfaction score for the clarity of the test form was 62%, and for the test panel was 75%. The score for the delay in responding to results was 54%. The overall satisfaction score for doctors was 67%. The correlation between the dimensions of patient satisfaction and their personal characteristics revealed a non-significant relationship. As for the interviews, they revealed that collaboration between prescribers and pathologists is necessary to meet the expectations of both and to guarantee an accurate, rapid and complete diagnosis. Conclusion: Measuring satisfaction is a tool for improving and optimising the quality of services provided by the laboratory. The results obtained in our survey are encouraging. On the other hand, some deviations were identified and can be improved through proposed corrective actions.