Search

Context.—: Stand-alone clinical sites (eg, infusion centers) are becoming increasingly common. These sites require timely hematology analysis. Here we compare performance and costs of currently available analysis configurations with special focus on a proposed alternative using a minimal hematology analyzer plus a digital imaging device, allowing for remote oversight and interpretation., Objectives.—: To determine whether low-volume laboratories might realize savings while gaining function by substituting commonly used configurations with a proposed alternative., Design.—: To evaluate the performance of the proposed alternative configuration, blood counts with automated differentials produced by a Sysmex XE5000 (complete blood count reference method) were compared with cell counts from the Sysmex pocH-100i, CellaVision DM96 preclassified differentials, and DM96 reclassified differentials (differential reference method) by using standard regression analyses, 95% CIs, and truth tables. Financial cost modeling used staffing practices, test volumes, and smear production rates observed at remote clinics performing on-site hematology analysis within the University of California at San Diego Health system., Results.—: Differential blood count parameters showed excellent correlation between the XE5000 and preclassification DM96 with R 2 > 0.95. For blasts/abnormal cells, immature granulocytes, and nucleated red blood cells, the DM96 showed higher sensitivity and similar specificity to the XE5000. Cost modeling revealed that decreased personnel costs through remote monitoring of results facilitated by the DM96 would lead to lower operational costs relative to more conventional analysis configurations., Conclusions.—: A digital imaging instrument with an inexpensive hematology analyzer provides similar information to a complex hematology analyzer and allows remote review of the blood smear findings by experts, leading to significant cost savings.

Aims: Quality assessment of blood cell morphological testing, such as white blood cell (WBC) differential and its interpretation, is one of the most important and difficult assignments in haematology laboratories. A monthly survey was performed to assess the possible role of the proficiency testing program produced by CellaVision competency software (CCS) in external quality assessment (EQA) of the clinical laboratories of affiliated university hospitals and the effective utilisation of this program in continuing professional development (CPD)., Methods: Four monthly proficiency surveys were conducted in collaboration with four clinical laboratories affiliated with the teaching hospitals of Juntendo University of Medicine in Japan., Results: EQA results by the CCS proficiency testing program revealed a difference of performance levels of WBC differential and morphological interpretation and a discrepancy in the WBC differential criteria among laboratories. With regard to the utilisation of this proficiency program as a tool for CPD, this program successfully improved the performance of the low-scoring laboratories and less experienced individuals., Conclusions: The CCS proficiency testing program was useful for the quality assessment of laboratory performance, for education, and for the storage and distribution of cell images to be utilised for further standardisation and education.

Background: To optimize precision of nucleated blood cell counting, the clinical laboratory scientist should post the automated differential rather than the manual differential if the former is within the 95% CI of the latter, as determined by the "Rumke statistic." The objective of this study was to determine the potential impact of real-time, computer assisted use of Rumke statistics for more judicious use of the automated vs digitally imaged, manual differential. Methods: Complete blood counts with automated differentials produced by a XE5000™ hematology analyzer (Sysmex) were compared with both the DM96 (CellaVision™ AB) preclassification differentials and the posted reclassified manual differentials, using the Rumke 95% CIs as calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method. Results: A total of 44.7% of manual differentials had no statistical or clinical justification over the automated differential. In addition, 31.1% of manual differentials had statistical discrepancies between the instrument absolute neutrophil count (IANC) and manual absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Nineteen of these IANC/manual ANC discrepant samples had ANCs below 1500/μL, a decision level for cancer treatment. Holding the IANC when it is less than 2000/μL until after manual smear review would have prevented the posting of any IANC vs manual ANC discrepant results at the 1500/μL ANC decision threshold. Conclusions: A real-time operator alert concerning the statistical identity of imaging device differentials vs automated differentials could have reduced manual differentials by nearly 45%. Not posting unnecessary manual differentials for the cases with IANC/manual ANC discrepancies would have likely reduced clinical error/confusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]