Background: Good communication between the clinics and the laboratories and among the health professionals enhances diagnostic capability, efficiency and better management of the patient and is necessary for accurate and precise results. The study was carried out to audit and assess communication flow between the clinic and laboratory at the Haematology Department of the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital - Enugu. Method: A total of 1000 laboratory request forms were collated in the study and each of these forms was monitored from time of inception till dispatch. Information in the laboratory request forms were grouped into four categories; patient’s biodata, clinical information, laboratory parameters and administrative parameters and analyzed statistically. Results: In patients biodata; age, sex and ethnic group fell short by 74.7%, 13.3% and 35.7% respectively. In clinical information category; clinical detail, provisional diagnosis, previous haematological requests and nature of specimen were insufficiently completed in 68.0%, 14.0%, 84.4% and 7.4% of the forms respectively. Ward, referring doctor and hospital reference number, were deficient by 1.2%, 2.4% and 65.0% respectively. Date, time of collection and date of arrival in the laboratory were lacking in all the forms. Out of the 1000 samples that arrived to the laboratory, 2% were inadequately collected or clotted and hence rejected. The information about these specimens was not communicated to the clinic/ward either through telephone or immediate dispatch for necessary repeat collection. Conclusion: We observed poor information communication between the clinicians and the laboratory and this may affect the accuracy of results. The inclusion of formal training in investigations, collection and handling of pathological samples in medical curriculum and training of practicing doctors through continuing education is recommended. Advances in technology or change in procedure should be adequately communicated to all concerned in the utility of laboratory results. Pathologists should play the critical roles of not only interpreting the results of the tests but also the continuing education of young doctors.