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

• Published in: American journal of clinical pathology 2024-07
• Main Authors: Moore, Margaret, Chen, Xueyan, Sadigh, Sam, Seifert, Robert, Mindiola Romero, Andres E, Pozdnyakova, Olga, Courville, Elizabeth L
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0002-9173; 1943-7722; 1943-7722
• DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqae091

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