Evaluating pathologist practices in peripheral blood smear review: A comprehensive practice survey

Margaret Moore; Xueyan Chen; Sam Sadigh; Robert Seifert; Andres E Mindiola Romero; Olga Pozdnyakova; Elizabeth L Courville

doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqae091

Evaluating pathologist practices in peripheral blood smear review: A comprehensive practice survey

Am J Clin Pathol. 2024 Jul 22:aqae091. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqae091. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Margaret Moore¹, Xueyan Chen², Sam Sadigh³, Robert Seifert⁴, Andres E Mindiola Romero⁵, Olga Pozdnyakova⁶, Elizabeth L Courville¹

Affiliations

¹ University of Virginia Health, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, US.
² Translational Science and Therapeutics Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, US.
³ Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, US.
⁴ Department of Pathology, Immunology and Lab Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, US.
⁵ Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, US.
⁶ The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, US.

PMID: 39037433
DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqae091

Abstract

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.

Keywords: blood film; blood smear; hematopathology fellowship; pathologist; pathology resident; peripheral smear; practice survey.

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pathology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact [email protected].