The Impact of Pathologist Review on Peripheral Blood Smears: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 22 Laboratories.

Megan O Nakashima, Suzanne Nelson Coulter, Barbara J Blond, Richard W Brown, Jeffrey A Vos
{"title":"The Impact of Pathologist Review on Peripheral Blood Smears: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 22 Laboratories.","authors":"Megan O Nakashima, Suzanne Nelson Coulter, Barbara J Blond, Richard W Brown, Jeffrey A Vos","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2024-0117-CP","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>The aim of the study was to determine the impact of peripheral blood (PB) smear review by a pathologist when requested by a technologist or provider to measure the rate of pathologist-detected clinically relevant findings.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To report and analyze the results of clinically relevant morphologic findings on PB smears that were pathologist reviewed because of either a request from a technologist or an order from a provider.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>During a 4-week study period, participants enrolled in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program submitted data on PB smear reviews including review request source, reason for review request, and if the pathologist's review resulted in a clinically relevant morphologic finding.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Twenty-two institutions submitted data on 835 eligible PB smears. Pathologists identified clinically relevant findings on a median 53.4% of technologist-requested PB smear reviews and a median 14.3% of provider-ordered PB smear reviews .The most frequently identified pathologist finding on technologist-requested PB smear reviews was \"blasts\" in 91 of 532 (17.1%) followed by \"atypical (possibly neoplastic) lymphocytes\" in 74 of 532 (13.9%); the most frequent finding on provider-ordered reviews was \"other\" in 55 of 315 (17.5%) followed by \"immature cells/left shift in myeloid cells or monocytes\" in 12 of 315 (3.8%). Pathologists agreed with technologists' indications for review in 458 of 513 requested reviews (89.3%). Institutions that conducted postanalytic follow-up on previously reviewed PB smears had a higher rate of clinically relevant findings detected on technologist-requested smears.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Pathologist review of PB smears flagged by technologists for review frequently yielded clinically relevant findings. This was higher in institutions that conducted postanalytic reviews. Provider-ordered reviews resulted in clinically relevant findings in a median of 14.3% of smears.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2024-0117-CP","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: The aim of the study was to determine the impact of peripheral blood (PB) smear review by a pathologist when requested by a technologist or provider to measure the rate of pathologist-detected clinically relevant findings.

Objective.—: To report and analyze the results of clinically relevant morphologic findings on PB smears that were pathologist reviewed because of either a request from a technologist or an order from a provider.

Design.—: During a 4-week study period, participants enrolled in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program submitted data on PB smear reviews including review request source, reason for review request, and if the pathologist's review resulted in a clinically relevant morphologic finding.

Results.—: Twenty-two institutions submitted data on 835 eligible PB smears. Pathologists identified clinically relevant findings on a median 53.4% of technologist-requested PB smear reviews and a median 14.3% of provider-ordered PB smear reviews .The most frequently identified pathologist finding on technologist-requested PB smear reviews was "blasts" in 91 of 532 (17.1%) followed by "atypical (possibly neoplastic) lymphocytes" in 74 of 532 (13.9%); the most frequent finding on provider-ordered reviews was "other" in 55 of 315 (17.5%) followed by "immature cells/left shift in myeloid cells or monocytes" in 12 of 315 (3.8%). Pathologists agreed with technologists' indications for review in 458 of 513 requested reviews (89.3%). Institutions that conducted postanalytic follow-up on previously reviewed PB smears had a higher rate of clinically relevant findings detected on technologist-requested smears.

Conclusions.—: Pathologist review of PB smears flagged by technologists for review frequently yielded clinically relevant findings. This was higher in institutions that conducted postanalytic reviews. Provider-ordered reviews resulted in clinically relevant findings in a median of 14.3% of smears.

病理学家审查对外周血涂片的影响:美国病理学家学会对 22 个实验室进行的 Q-Probes 研究。
研究背景该研究旨在确定在技术人员或医疗服务提供者要求下由病理学家对外周血(PB)涂片进行审查的影响,以衡量病理学家发现的临床相关结果的比率:报告并分析因技术人员或医疗服务提供者的要求而由病理学家复查的外周血涂片上与临床相关的形态学结果:在为期 4 周的研究期间,美国病理学家学会 Q-Probes 计划的参与者提交了 PB 涂片审查数据,包括审查请求来源、审查请求原因以及病理学家的审查是否导致了临床相关的形态学发现:22家机构提交了835份符合条件的PB涂片数据。病理学家在技术人员要求的 PB 涂片审查中,发现临床相关结果的比例中位数为 53.4%,在医疗机构要求的 PB 涂片审查中,发现临床相关结果的比例中位数为 14.3%。在技术人员要求的 PB 涂片审查中,病理学家最常发现的结果是 "爆裂",532 例中有 91 例(17.1%),其次是 "非典型"。1%),其次是 "非典型(可能是肿瘤性)淋巴细胞",532 例中有 74 例(13.9%);在医疗服务提供者要求的涂片复查中,最常见的发现是 "其他",315 例中有 55 例(17.5%),其次是 "未成熟细胞/髓系细胞或单核细胞左移",315 例中有 12 例(3.8%)。病理学家同意技术专家在 513 例复查申请中提出的 458 例(89.3%)复查指征。对之前复核过的PB涂片进行分析后随访的机构,在技术人员要求复核的涂片中发现临床相关结果的比例较高:病理学家对技术人员要求复查的 PB 涂片进行复查后,经常会发现与临床相关的结果。在进行分析后复查的机构中,这种情况更多。由医疗服务提供者要求进行复查的涂片中位数为14.3%,复查结果与临床相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信