评估病理学家在外周血涂片审查中的做法:综合实践调查。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Margaret Moore, Xueyan Chen, Sam Sadigh, Robert Seifert, Andres E Mindiola Romero, Olga Pozdnyakova, Elizabeth L Courville
{"title":"评估病理学家在外周血涂片审查中的做法:综合实践调查。","authors":"Margaret Moore, Xueyan Chen, Sam Sadigh, Robert Seifert, Andres E Mindiola Romero, Olga Pozdnyakova, Elizabeth L Courville","doi":"10.1093/ajcp/aqae091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Widely accepted standardized criteria for peripheral blood (PB) smear review do not exist. The aim of this study was to collect data regarding PB smear review practices across multiple institutions, with a focus on pathologist review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 23-question survey was developed by members of the Society for Hematopathology (SH) Education Committee and distributed to SH members. The survey included questions on practice environment and PB smear review practices, including trainee involvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 725 members contacted, 137 (19%) completed the entire survey. Over half of practices examined 5 to 20 smears a day. All respondents reported using complete blood count/differential leukocyte count data and clinical history as part of smear review. The reported proportion of laboratory-initiated vs clinician-requested reviews varied across respondents. Clinician-requested smear reviews were more likely to be billed and issued as a separate pathology report. Glass slide review (as opposed to digital microscopy) was used by most respondents. All respondents affirmed that PB smear review is an essential component of pathology training programs. Numerous free-text comments were submitted by respondents regarding their own experiences with PB smear review and suggested improvements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This survey elucidated the spectrum of practice patterns for pathologist review of blood smears and identified potential areas for process improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating pathologist practices in peripheral blood smear review: A comprehensive practice survey.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Moore, Xueyan Chen, Sam Sadigh, Robert Seifert, Andres E Mindiola Romero, Olga Pozdnyakova, Elizabeth L Courville\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcp/aqae091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Widely accepted standardized criteria for peripheral blood (PB) smear review do not exist. The aim of this study was to collect data regarding PB smear review practices across multiple institutions, with a focus on pathologist review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 23-question survey was developed by members of the Society for Hematopathology (SH) Education Committee and distributed to SH members. The survey included questions on practice environment and PB smear review practices, including trainee involvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 725 members contacted, 137 (19%) completed the entire survey. Over half of practices examined 5 to 20 smears a day. All respondents reported using complete blood count/differential leukocyte count data and clinical history as part of smear review. The reported proportion of laboratory-initiated vs clinician-requested reviews varied across respondents. Clinician-requested smear reviews were more likely to be billed and issued as a separate pathology report. Glass slide review (as opposed to digital microscopy) was used by most respondents. All respondents affirmed that PB smear review is an essential component of pathology training programs. Numerous free-text comments were submitted by respondents regarding their own experiences with PB smear review and suggested improvements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This survey elucidated the spectrum of practice patterns for pathologist review of blood smears and identified potential areas for process improvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:外周血(PB)涂片审查的标准化标准尚未得到广泛认可。本研究旨在收集多个机构的外周血涂片审查实践数据,重点关注病理学家的审查:方法:血液病理学学会(SH)教育委员会成员编写了一份包含 23 个问题的调查问卷,并分发给了学会成员。调查内容包括实践环境和 PB 涂片审查实践(包括受训者的参与)等问题:在联系的 725 名会员中,有 137 人(19%)完成了整个调查。超过一半的医疗机构每天检查 5 到 20 张涂片。所有受访者均表示在涂片检查中使用了全血细胞计数/白细胞计数差值数据和临床病史。不同受访者报告的实验室主动与临床医生要求的涂片审查比例各不相同。临床医生要求的涂片复核更有可能作为单独的病理报告进行收费和签发。大多数受访者使用玻璃载玻片复核(而非数码显微镜)。所有受访者都肯定了 PB 涂片审查是病理培训项目的重要组成部分。受访者提交了大量自由文本评论,内容涉及他们自己在 PB 涂片审查方面的经验和改进建议:这项调查阐明了病理学家审查血液涂片的各种实践模式,并确定了流程改进的潜在领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating pathologist practices in peripheral blood smear review: A comprehensive practice survey.

Objectives: Widely accepted standardized criteria for peripheral blood (PB) smear review do not exist. The aim of this study was to collect data regarding PB smear review practices across multiple institutions, with a focus on pathologist review.

Methods: A 23-question survey was developed by members of the Society for Hematopathology (SH) Education Committee and distributed to SH members. The survey included questions on practice environment and PB smear review practices, including trainee involvement.

Results: Of 725 members contacted, 137 (19%) completed the entire survey. Over half of practices examined 5 to 20 smears a day. All respondents reported using complete blood count/differential leukocyte count data and clinical history as part of smear review. The reported proportion of laboratory-initiated vs clinician-requested reviews varied across respondents. Clinician-requested smear reviews were more likely to be billed and issued as a separate pathology report. Glass slide review (as opposed to digital microscopy) was used by most respondents. All respondents affirmed that PB smear review is an essential component of pathology training programs. Numerous free-text comments were submitted by respondents regarding their own experiences with PB smear review and suggested improvements.

Conclusions: This survey elucidated the spectrum of practice patterns for pathologist review of blood smears and identified potential areas for process improvement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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