English 
Italian I commenti interpretativi nel referto ematologico di laboratorio
AUTORI
1U.O. Patologia Clinica, Ospedale "F. Lotti", Azienda USL 5, Pontedera (PI)
2Laboratorio Analisi, Istituto Fiorentino di Cura e Assistenza (IFCA), Firenze
3Laboratorio di Analisi Chimico Cliniche, Azienda Ospedaliera Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo
4Laboratorio Generale, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze
5Dipartimento di Patologia Clinica, Azienda Ospedaliera “V. Cervello”, Palermo
6Laboratorio Analisi ASL 12, Viareggio (LU)
7U.O. Diagnostica Ematochimica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma
8Medicina di Laboratorio ASL 3, Bassano del Grappa (TV)
9U.O.C. Patologia Clinica, Ospedale Civile, Avezzano (AQ)
10Laboratorio Analisi, ASL NO, Borgomanero (NO)
11Medicina di Laboratorio, Fondazione G. Monasterio CNR Regione Toscana, Pisa
ABSTRACT
Interpretative comments in the laboratory hematology report
Interpretative comments in the laboratory reports can improve the quality of diagnostic information. The complete blood count with differential (CBC-diff) is one of the hematology laboratory tests with demonstrated clinical usefulness. CBC-diff may include a peripheral blood smear if numerical or morphological review criteria are fulfilled. As such, hematologists need specific skill for interpreting and conveying the diagnostic information to clinicians by using adequate communication approaches. A survey carried out by the SIBioC Diagnostic Hematology Study Group (GdS-DE) showed a heterogeneous situation about the use of the hematological interpretative comments. In each laboratory, different descriptions were used even for the same cell abnormalities. Moreover, some laboratories omit to report relevant morphological abnormalities, such as activated or atypical lymphocytes as well as immature granulocytes, which are often necessary for the diagnosis. Therefore, the GdS-DE has decided to select appropriate comments and to propose a standardized reporting system. First, 423 comments from 13 laboratories were analyzed. These comments were revised with the purpose of: a) reducing the number, b) standardizing the language, c) providing an information in a format that could be easily understood by patients and clinicians, and d) increasing the quality of clinical information. The GdS-DE decided to provide written information for both physicians and patients or for physician’s use only. The former is represented by 59 comments using a simple and not frightening language, whereas the latter is a letter for the physician in which more specific information is provided.