Laboratory productivity and the rate of manual peripheral blood smear review: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 95 141 complete blood count determinations performed in 263 institutions

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 130, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 596-601

  Novis, David A ^a,e   Walsh, Molly ^b   Wilkinson, David ^c   St Louis, Mary ^d   Ben Ezra, Jonathon ^c,d  

^a Wentworth Douglass Hospital   (United States)

^b Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Wentworth Douglass Hospital ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN;

AUTOANALYZER; BLOOD ANALYSIS; BLOOD CELL COUNT; BLOOD SMEAR; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HEMATOLOGY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; LABORATORY AUTOMATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LEUKOCYTE DIFFERENTIAL COUNT; MOLECULAR PROBE; PRODUCTIVITY; Q PROBE; REVIEW; THROMBOCYTE COUNT;

BLOOD CELL COUNT; CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; EFFICIENCY; HEMATOLOGY; HUMANS; LABORATORIES, HOSPITAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646708700     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Pierre RV. Peripheral blood film review: the demise of the eyecount leukocyte differential. Clin Lab Med. 2002;22:279-297.
2. Buttarello M, Gadotti M, Lorenz C, et al. Evaluation of four automated hematology analyzers: a comparative study of differential counts (imprecision and inaccuracy). Am J Clin Pathol. 1992;97:345-352.
3. Groner W, Simson E. Practical Guide to Modern Hematology Analyzers. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1995:188-197.
4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference Leukocyte Differential Count (Proportional) and Evaluation of Instrument Methods. NCCLS document H20-A. Villanova, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1992.
5. Davis GM. Auto-verification of the peripheral blood count. Lab Med. 1994;25:528.
6. Peterson P, Blomberg DJ, Rabinovitch A, Cornbleet PJ. Physician review of the peripheral blood smear: when and why: an opinion. Lab Hematol. 2001;7:175-179.
7. Lantis KL, Harris RJ, Davis G, Renner N, Finn WG. Elimination of instrument-driven reflex manual differential leukocyte counts: optimization of manual blood smear review criteria in a high-volume automated hematology laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:656-662.
8. Howanitz PJ. Quality assurance measurements in departments of pathology and laboratory medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1990;114:1131-1135.
9. Lawson NS, Howanitz PJ. The College of American Pathologists, 1946-1996: quality assurance service. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:1000-1008.
10. Schifman RB, Howanitz PJ, Zarbo RJ. Q-Probes: a College of American Pathologists benchmarking program for quality management in pathology and laboratory medicine. Adv Pathol Lab Med. 1996;9:83-120.
11. Howanitz PJ, Steindel SJ. Digoxin therapeutic drug monitoring practices: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 666 institutions and 18 679 toxic levels. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1993;117:684-690.
12. Valenstein PN, Howanitz PJ. Ordering accuracy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 577 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:117-122.
13. Jones BA, Meier FA, Howanitz PJ. Complete blood count specimen acceptability: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 703 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:203-208.
14. Valenstein P, Pfaller M, Yungbluth M. The use and abuse of stool microbiology: a College American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 601 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:206-211.
15. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 1,004,115 cases from 417 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:227-233.
16. Valenstein P, Schifman RB. Duplicate laboratory orders: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of thyrotropin requests in 502 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:917-921.
17. Schifman RB, Bachner P, Howanitz PJ. Blood culture quality improvement: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study involving 909 institutions and 289,572 blood culture sets. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:999-1002.
18. Jones BA, Calam RR, Howanitz PJ. Chemistry specimen acceptability: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 453 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:19-26.
19. Valenstein P, Meier F. Urine culture contamination: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of contaminated urine cultures in 906 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:123-129.
20. Schifman RB, Strand CL, Meier FA, Howanitz PJ. Blood culture contamination: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study involving 640 institutions and 497,134 specimens from adult patients. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:216-221.
21. Valenstein PN, Meier F. Outpatient order accuracy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of requisition order entry accuracy in 660 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:1145-1150.
22. Novis DA, Dale JC, Schifman RB, Ruby SG, Walsh MK. Solitary blood cultures: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 132,778 blood culture sets in 333 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125:1285-1289.
23. Novis DA, Renner S, Friedberg R, Walsh M, Saladino A. Quality indicators of blood utilization: three College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of 12,288,404 red blood cell units in 1,639 hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:150-156.
24. Dale JC, Ruby SG. Specimen collection volumes for laboratory tests: a College of American Pathologists study of 140 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:162-168.
25. Friedberg RC, Jones BA, Walsh M. Type and screen completion for scheduled surgical procedures: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 8941 type and screen tests in 108 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:533-540.
26. International Consensus Group for Hematology Review, International Society for Laboratory Hematology. Suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. Available at: http://www.islh.org/ 2004/Committees/ConsensusGroup/CGICGHReview.htm. Accessed April 3, 2006.
27. Smith N, Rosenfeld D, Watman R. Hematology autovalidation system. Lab Hematol. 1999;5:52-55.